o4-mini-deep-research vs Apertus 70B
o4-mini-deep-research comes out ahead, 37 to 32 on our weighted score, though Apertus 70B is 2.6× cheaper per token.
- Our pick
OpenAIo4-mini-deep-research
37/100- ECI—
- Price$1.80 / $7.20
- Context200K
Swiss AI
Apertus 70B
32/100- ECI—
- Price$0.82 / $2.42
- Context66K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
o4-mini-deep-research is our pick
o4-mini-deep-research is the better all-round choice, scoring 37/100 against Apertus 70B (32). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Apertus 70B 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 priceApertus 70BApertus 70B $1.22 · o4-mini-deep-research $3.15 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contexto4-mini-deep-researcho4-mini-deep-research 200,000 · Apertus 70B 65,536 tokens
- Widest inputso4-mini-deep-researcho4-mini-deep-research: Text, Images · Apertus 70B: Text
- Self-hostingApertus 70BPublishes downloadable weights (Apache-2.0)
| Measure | Weight | o4-mini-deep-research | Apertus 70B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 25 | 44 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 60 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 32 | 12 |
| Overall | 100% | 37/100 | 32/100 |
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 | o4-mini-deep-researchOpenAI | Apertus 70BSwiss AI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $1.80 | $0.82 (best) |
| Output | $7.20 | $2.42 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $3.15 | $1.22 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Median of 3 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 200,000 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens |
| Max output | 100,000 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | OpenApache-2.0 |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 1 | 3 (best) |
| Released | Jun 26, 2025 | Sep 2, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | May 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.
- o4-mini-deep-research$32.40
- Apertus 70B$13.04
Which should you choose?
Which is better: o4-mini-deep-research or Apertus 70B?
o4-mini-deep-research is the better all-round choice, scoring 37/100 against Apertus 70B (32). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Apertus 70B 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, o4-mini-deep-research or Apertus 70B?
Apertus 70B is cheaper at $0.82 input / $2.42 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). o4-mini-deep-research costs $1.80 input / $7.20 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $1.22 per million tokens for Apertus 70B versus $3.15 for o4-mini-deep-research (2.6× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. o4-mini-deep-research has not been scored yet and Apertus 70B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for o4-mini-deep-research and Apertus 70B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
o4-mini-deep-research has the largest context window at 200,000 tokens, against 65,536 for Apertus 70B. Maximum output per response: o4-mini-deep-research up to 100,000, Apertus 70B up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
o4-mini-deep-research accepts text and images; Apertus 70B accepts text. o4-mini-deep-research handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Apertus 70B publishes its weights (Apache-2.0) and can be self-hosted; o4-mini-deep-research is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Apertus 70B is the newest, released Sep 2, 2025. o4-mini-deep-research came out Jun 26, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: o4-mini-deep-research May 2024, Apertus 70B 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.
Related comparisons
- Add Jamba LargeThree-way comparison
- o4-mini-deep-research vs Jamba LargeAI21 Labs
- o4-mini-deep-research vs Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-05Google
- o4-mini-deep-research vs Qwen MT PlusAlibaba (Qwen)
- o4-mini-deep-research vs Pixtral Large (25.02)Mistral AI
- Apertus 70B vs Kimi K2 Instruct 0905Moonshot AI
- Apertus 70B vs Qwen3 VL 235B A22B ThinkingAlibaba (Qwen)
