o4-mini-deep-research vs Solar Pro 2 vs Jamba Large
Solar Pro 2 comes out ahead, 51 to 37 and 29 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
OpenAIo4-mini-deep-research
37/100- ECI—
- Price$1.80 / $7.20
- Context200K
- Our pick
UpstageSolar Pro 2
51/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $0.25
- Context66K
AI21 LabsJamba Large
29/100- ECI—
- Price$2.00 / $8.00
- Context256K
Solar Pro 2 is our pick
Solar Pro 2 is the better all-round choice, scoring 51/100 against o4-mini-deep-research (37) and Jamba Large (29). It leads on price. o4-mini-deep-research wins on inputs & features. Jamba Large wins on context window. 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 priceSolar Pro 2Solar Pro 2 $0.25 · o4-mini-deep-research $3.15 · Jamba Large $3.50 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextJamba LargeJamba Large 256,000 · o4-mini-deep-research 200,000 · Solar Pro 2 65,536 tokens
- Widest inputso4-mini-deep-researcho4-mini-deep-research: Text, Images · Solar Pro 2: Text · Jamba Large: Text
- Self-hostingJamba LargePublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | o4-mini-deep-research | Solar Pro 2 | Jamba Large |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 25 | 75 | 23 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 60 | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 32 | 12 | 36 |
| Overall | 100% | 37/100 | 51/100 | 29/100 |
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 | Solar Pro 2Upstage | Jamba LargeAI21 Labs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $1.80 | $0.25 (best) | $2.00 |
| Output | $7.20 | $0.25 (best) | $8.00 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $3.15 | $0.25 (best) | $3.50 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Official Upstage API | Official AI21 Labs API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 200,000 tokens | 65,536 tokens | 256,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 100,000 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens | 4,096 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yesminimal · high | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | — | solar-pro2 | jamba-large |
| API providers | 1 | 2 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Jun 26, 2025 | May 20, 2025 | Jul 3, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | May 2024 | Mar 2025 | Aug 22, 2024 |
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
- Solar Pro 2$3.00
- Jamba Large$36.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: o4-mini-deep-research, Solar Pro 2 or Jamba Large?
Solar Pro 2 is the better all-round choice, scoring 51/100 against o4-mini-deep-research (37) and Jamba Large (29). It leads on price. o4-mini-deep-research wins on inputs & features. Jamba Large wins on context window. 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, Solar Pro 2 or Jamba Large?
Solar Pro 2 is cheaper at $0.25 input / $0.25 output per million tokens (official Upstage API price). o4-mini-deep-research costs $1.80 input / $7.20 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider); Jamba Large costs $2.00 input / $8.00 output per million tokens (official AI21 Labs API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.25 per million tokens for Solar Pro 2 versus $3.15 for o4-mini-deep-research (13× as much) and $3.50 for Jamba Large (14× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. o4-mini-deep-research has not been scored yet, Solar Pro 2 has not been scored yet and Jamba Large has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for o4-mini-deep-research, Solar Pro 2 and Jamba Large yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Jamba Large has the largest context window at 256,000 tokens, against 200,000 for o4-mini-deep-research and 65,536 for Solar Pro 2. Maximum output per response: o4-mini-deep-research up to 100,000, Solar Pro 2 up to 8,192, Jamba Large up to 4,096 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
o4-mini-deep-research accepts text and images; Solar Pro 2 accepts text; Jamba Large accepts text. o4-mini-deep-research handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Jamba Large publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; o4-mini-deep-research and Solar Pro 2 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Jamba Large is the newest, released Jul 3, 2025. o4-mini-deep-research came out Jun 26, 2025; Solar Pro 2 came out May 20, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: o4-mini-deep-research May 2024, Solar Pro 2 Mar 2025, Jamba Large Aug 22, 2024.
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.
