QVQ Max vs Apertus 70B
QVQ Max comes out ahead, 40 to 33 on our weighted score, though Apertus 70B is 42% cheaper per token.
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)QVQ Max
40/100- ECI—
- Price$1.20 / $4.80
- Context131K
Swiss AI
Apertus 70B
33/100- ECI—
- Price$0.82 / $2.42
- Context66K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
QVQ Max is our pick
QVQ Max is the better all-round choice, scoring 40/100 against Apertus 70B (33). 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 · QVQ Max $2.10 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQVQ MaxQVQ Max 131,072 · Apertus 70B 65,536 tokens
- Widest inputsQVQ MaxQVQ Max: Text, Images · Apertus 70B: Text
- Self-hostingApertus 70BPublishes downloadable weights (Apache-2.0)
| Measure | Weight | QVQ Max | Apertus 70B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 35 | 46 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 60 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 12 |
| Overall | 100% | 40/100 | 33/100 |
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 | QVQ MaxAlibaba (Qwen) | Apertus 70BSwiss AI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $1.20 | $0.82 (best) |
| Output | $4.80 | $2.42 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $2.10 | $1.22 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Alibaba API | Median of 3 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 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 | qvq-max | — |
| API providers | 1 | 3 (best) |
| Released | Mar 25, 2025 | Sep 2, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 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.
- QVQ Max$21.60
- Apertus 70B$13.04
Which should you choose?
Which is better: QVQ Max or Apertus 70B?
QVQ Max is the better all-round choice, scoring 40/100 against Apertus 70B (33). 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, QVQ Max or Apertus 70B?
Apertus 70B is cheaper at $0.82 input / $2.42 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). QVQ Max costs $1.20 input / $4.80 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $1.22 per million tokens for Apertus 70B versus $2.10 for QVQ Max (1.7× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. QVQ Max 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 QVQ Max 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?
QVQ Max has the largest context window at 131,072 tokens, against 65,536 for Apertus 70B. Maximum output per response: QVQ Max up to 8,192, Apertus 70B up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
QVQ Max accepts text and images; Apertus 70B accepts text. QVQ Max 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; QVQ Max is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Apertus 70B is the newest, released Sep 2, 2025. QVQ Max came out Mar 25, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: QVQ Max Apr 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 Oct 4, 2026.
