Solar Pro 2 vs Solar Pro 3 vs Qwen-MT Turbo
Too close to call on our weighted score (Solar Pro 3 55, Solar Pro 2 52, Qwen-MT Turbo 40). The right pick depends on what you value most.
Upstage
Solar Pro 2
52/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $0.25
- Context66K
Upstage
Solar Pro 3
55/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $0.25
- Context131K
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen-MT Turbo
40/100- ECI—
- Price$0.16 / $0.49
- Context16K
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Solar Pro 3 55/100, Solar Pro 2 52/100, Qwen-MT Turbo 40/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen-MT Turbo on price and Solar Pro 3 for long inputs. 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 priceQwen-MT TurboQwen-MT Turbo $0.242 · Solar Pro 2 $0.25 · Solar Pro 3 $0.25 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextSolar Pro 3Solar Pro 3 131,072 · Solar Pro 2 65,536 · Qwen-MT Turbo 16,384 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsSolar Pro 2: Text · Solar Pro 3: Text · Qwen-MT Turbo: Text
- Self-hostingNo open weightsAll three are available only through APIs
| Measure | Weight | Solar Pro 2 | Solar Pro 3 | Qwen-MT Turbo |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 78 | 78 | 79 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 35 | 0 |
| Context window | 20% | 12 | 24 | 0 |
| Overall | 100% | 52/100 | 55/100 | 40/100 |
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 | Solar Pro 2Upstage | Solar Pro 3Upstage | Qwen-MT TurboAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.25 | $0.25 | $0.16 (best) |
| Output | $0.25 (best) | $0.25 (best) | $0.49 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.25 | $0.25 | $0.242 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Upstage API | Official Upstage API | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 65,536 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) | 16,384 tokens |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 8,192 tokens | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yesminimal · high | Yeslow · medium · high | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | No |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | solar-pro2 | solar-pro3 | qwen-mt-turbo |
| API providers | 2 (best) | 2 (best) | 1 |
| Released | May 20, 2025 | Jan 2026 | Jan 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Mar 2025 | Mar 2025 | Apr 2024 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Solar Pro 2$3.00
- Solar Pro 3$3.00
- Qwen-MT Turbo$2.58
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Solar Pro 2, Solar Pro 3 or Qwen-MT Turbo?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Solar Pro 3 55/100, Solar Pro 2 52/100, Qwen-MT Turbo 40/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen-MT Turbo on price and Solar Pro 3 for long inputs. 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, Solar Pro 2, Solar Pro 3 or Qwen-MT Turbo?
Qwen-MT Turbo is cheaper at $0.16 input / $0.49 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). Solar Pro 2 costs $0.25 input / $0.25 output per million tokens (official Upstage API price); Solar Pro 3 costs $0.25 input / $0.25 output per million tokens (official Upstage API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.242 per million tokens for Qwen-MT Turbo versus $0.25 for Solar Pro 2 (1× as much) and $0.25 for Solar Pro 3 (1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Solar Pro 2 has not been scored yet, Solar Pro 3 has not been scored yet and Qwen-MT Turbo has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Solar Pro 2, Solar Pro 3 and Qwen-MT Turbo yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Qwen-MT Turbo does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Solar Pro 3 has the largest context window at 131,072 tokens, against 65,536 for Solar Pro 2 and 16,384 for Qwen-MT Turbo. Maximum output per response: Solar Pro 2 up to 8,192, Solar Pro 3 up to 8,192, Qwen-MT Turbo up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Solar Pro 2 accepts text; Solar Pro 3 accepts text; Qwen-MT Turbo accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
No. Solar Pro 2, Solar Pro 3 and Qwen-MT Turbo are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.
Which is newer?
Solar Pro 3 is the newest, released Jan 2026. Solar Pro 2 came out May 20, 2025; Qwen-MT Turbo came out Jan 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Solar Pro 2 Mar 2025, Solar Pro 3 Mar 2025, Qwen-MT Turbo Apr 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 Oct 4, 2026.
