ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking vs Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) vs Apertus 70B

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) comes out ahead, 52 to 44 and 32 on our weighted score, though Apertus 70B is 22% cheaper per token.

  1. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking

    Released Sep 23, 2025

    44/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.50 / $3.95
    • Context131K
  2. Our pick

    xAI

    Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)

    Released Mar 9, 2026

    52/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$1.25 / $2.50
    • Context1M
  3. Swiss AI

    Apertus 70B

    Released Sep 2, 2025

    32/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.82 / $2.42
    • Context66K
01 — Verdict

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is our pick

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the better all-round choice, scoring 52/100 against Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking (44) and 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 · Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking $1.36 · Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) $1.56 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) 1,000,000 · Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking 131,072 · Apertus 70B 65,536 tokens
  • Widest inputsGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking: Text, Images · Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning): Text, Images, PDFs · Apertus 70B: Text
  • Self-hostingQwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking and Apertus 70BPublishes downloadable weights (Apache-2.0)
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3 VL 235B A22B ThinkingGrok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)Apertus 70B
Price50%423944
Inputs & features30%607025
Context window20%256012
Overall100%44/10052/10032/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking vs Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) vs Apertus 70B specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3 VL 235B A22B ThinkingAlibaba (Qwen)Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)xAIApertus 70BSwiss AI
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)———
ECI rank———
Price per million tokens
Input$0.50 (best)$1.25$0.82
Output$3.95$2.50$2.42 (best)
Cached input—$0.20—
Blended (3:1)$1.36$1.56$1.22 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateOver 200K: $2.50 / $5.00Same rate
Price sourceMedian of 5 providersOfficial xAI APIMedian of 3 providers
Limits
Context window131,072 tokens1,000,000 tokens (best)65,536 tokens
Max output32,768 tokens (best)30,000 tokens8,192 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesYesNo
PDFsNoYesNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoNoNoNo
ReasoningYesNoNo
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputNoYesNo
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietaryOpenApache-2.0
API model ID—grok-4.20-0309-non-reasoning—
API providers513 (best)3
ReleasedSep 23, 2025Mar 9, 2026Sep 2, 2025
Knowledge cutoffMar 31, 2025—Sep 2025
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking$12.90
  • Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning)$17.50
  • Apertus 70B$13.04
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) or Apertus 70B?

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the better all-round choice, scoring 52/100 against Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking (44) and 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, Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) or Apertus 70B?

Apertus 70B is cheaper at $0.82 input / $2.42 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking costs $0.50 input / $3.95 output per million tokens (median across 5 API providers); Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) costs $1.25 input / $2.50 output per million tokens (official xAI 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 $1.36 for Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking (1.1× as much) and $1.56 for Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) (1.3× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking has not been scored yet, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) 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 Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) and Apertus 70B 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?

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 131,072 for Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking and 65,536 for Apertus 70B. Maximum output per response: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking up to 32,768, Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) up to 30,000, Apertus 70B up to 8,192 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking accepts text and images; Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) accepts text, images and PDFs; Apertus 70B accepts text. Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking and Apertus 70B publishes its weights (Apache-2.0) and can be self-hosted; Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Grok 4.20 (Non-Reasoning) is the newest, released Mar 9, 2026. Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking came out Sep 23, 2025; Apertus 70B came out Sep 2, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking Mar 31, 2025, 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.