Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking vs QVQ Max vs Apertus 70B
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking comes out ahead, 48 to 40 and 33 on our weighted score, though Apertus 70B is 6% cheaper per token.
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking
48/100- ECI—
- Price$0.40 / $4.00
- Context131K
- 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
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking is our pick
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking is the better all-round choice, scoring 48/100 against QVQ Max (40) and Apertus 70B (33). It leads on inputs & features. 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 $1.30 · QVQ Max $2.10 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking and QVQ MaxQwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking 131,072 · QVQ Max 131,072 · Apertus 70B 65,536 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking and QVQ MaxQwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking: Text, Images · QVQ Max: Text, Images · Apertus 70B: Text
- Self-hostingQwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking and Apertus 70BPublishes downloadable weights (Apache-2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking | QVQ Max | Apertus 70B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 44 | 35 | 46 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 70 | 60 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 24 | 12 |
| Overall | 100% | 48/100 | 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 | Qwen3 VL 235B A22B ThinkingAlibaba (Qwen) | QVQ MaxAlibaba (Qwen) | Apertus 70BSwiss AI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.40 (best) | $1.20 | $0.82 |
| Output | $4.00 | $4.80 | $2.42 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.30 | $2.10 | $1.22 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 9 providers | Official Alibaba API | Median of 3 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary | OpenApache-2.0 |
| API model ID | — | qvq-max | — |
| API providers | 9 (best) | 1 | 3 |
| Released | Sep 23, 2025 | Mar 25, 2025 | Sep 2, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Mar 31, 2025 | 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.
- Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking$12.00
- QVQ Max$21.60
- Apertus 70B$13.04
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking, QVQ Max or Apertus 70B?
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking is the better all-round choice, scoring 48/100 against QVQ Max (40) and Apertus 70B (33). It leads on inputs & features. 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, QVQ Max 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 $0.40 input / $4.00 output per million tokens (median across 9 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 $1.30 for Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking (1.1× as much) and $2.10 for QVQ Max (1.7× 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, 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 Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking, QVQ Max 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?
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking and QVQ Max have the largest context windows (131,072 and 131,072 tokens), against 65,536 for Apertus 70B. Maximum output per response: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking up to 32,768, QVQ Max up to 8,192, Apertus 70B up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking accepts text and images; QVQ Max accepts text and images; Apertus 70B accepts text. Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking 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; QVQ Max is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking is the newest, released Sep 23, 2025. Apertus 70B came out Sep 2, 2025; QVQ Max came out Mar 25, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking Mar 31, 2025, 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.
