Nemotron Nano 9B v2 vs Baichuan M2 32B vs Apertus 8B
Nemotron Nano 9B v2 comes out ahead, 62 to 58 and 54 on our weighted score, though Baichuan M2 32B is 32% cheaper per token.
- Our pick
NVIDIANemotron Nano 9B v2
62/100- ECI—
- Price$0.06 / $0.23
- Context131K
BaichuanBaichuan M2 32B
58/100- ECI—
- Price$0.07 / $0.07
- Context131K
Swiss AI
Apertus 8B
54/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.20
- Context66K
Nemotron Nano 9B v2 is our pick
Nemotron Nano 9B v2 is the better all-round choice, scoring 62/100 against Baichuan M2 32B (58) and Apertus 8B (54). It leads on inputs & features. Baichuan M2 32B wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceBaichuan M2 32BBaichuan M2 32B $0.07 · Nemotron Nano 9B v2 $0.102 · Apertus 8B $0.125 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextNemotron Nano 9B v2 and Baichuan M2 32BNemotron Nano 9B v2 131,072 · Baichuan M2 32B 131,072 · Apertus 8B 65,536 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsNemotron Nano 9B v2: Text · Baichuan M2 32B: Text · Apertus 8B: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Nemotron Nano 9B v2 | Baichuan M2 32B | Apertus 8B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 93 | 100 | 89 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 10 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 25 | 25 | 12 |
| Overall | 100% | 62/100 | 58/100 | 54/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Nemotron Nano 9B v2NVIDIA | Baichuan M2 32BBaichuan | Apertus 8BSwiss AI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.06 (best) | $0.07 | $0.10 |
| Output | $0.23 | $0.07 (best) | $0.20 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.102 | $0.07 (best) | $0.125 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 3 providers | Median of 1 providers | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | No | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | OpenApache-2.0 | OpenApache-2.0 |
| API model ID | — | — | — |
| API providers | 3 (best) | 1 | 1 |
| Released | Aug 18, 2025 | Aug 13, 2025 | Sep 2, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Sep 2024 | — | Sep 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Nemotron Nano 9B v2$1.06
- Baichuan M2 32B$0.84
- Apertus 8B$1.40
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Nemotron Nano 9B v2, Baichuan M2 32B or Apertus 8B?
Nemotron Nano 9B v2 is the better all-round choice, scoring 62/100 against Baichuan M2 32B (58) and Apertus 8B (54). It leads on inputs & features. Baichuan M2 32B wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Nemotron Nano 9B v2, Baichuan M2 32B or Apertus 8B?
Baichuan M2 32B is cheaper at $0.07 input / $0.07 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Nemotron Nano 9B v2 costs $0.06 input / $0.23 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers); Apertus 8B costs $0.10 input / $0.20 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.07 per million tokens for Baichuan M2 32B versus $0.102 for Nemotron Nano 9B v2 (1.5× as much) and $0.125 for Apertus 8B (1.8× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Nemotron Nano 9B v2 has not been scored yet, Baichuan M2 32B has not been scored yet and Apertus 8B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Nemotron Nano 9B v2, Baichuan M2 32B and Apertus 8B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Baichuan M2 32B does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Nemotron Nano 9B v2 and Baichuan M2 32B have the largest context windows (131,072 and 131,072 tokens), against 65,536 for Apertus 8B. Maximum output per response: Nemotron Nano 9B v2 up to 131,072, Baichuan M2 32B up to 131,072, Apertus 8B up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Nemotron Nano 9B v2 accepts text; Baichuan M2 32B accepts text; Apertus 8B accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, all three publish their weights (Apache-2.0), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Apertus 8B is the newest, released Sep 2, 2025. Nemotron Nano 9B v2 came out Aug 18, 2025; Baichuan M2 32B came out Aug 13, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Nemotron Nano 9B v2 Sep 2024, Apertus 8B Sep 2025.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.
