Sonar Pro vs Vision Large vs Qwen Max
Vision Large comes out ahead, 84 to 28 and 15 on our weighted score.
PerplexitySonar Pro
28/100- ECI—
- Price$3.00 / $15.00
- Context200K
- Our pick
VisparkVision Large
84/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context1M
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen Max
15/100- ECI—
- Price$1.60 / $6.40
- Context33K
Vision Large is our pick
Vision Large is the better all-round choice, scoring 84/100 against Sonar Pro (28) and Qwen Max (15). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. 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 MaxQwen Max $2.80 · Sonar Pro $6.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Vision Large unpriced
- Longest contextVision LargeVision Large 1,000,000 · Sonar Pro 200,000 · Qwen Max 32,768 tokens
- Widest inputsVision LargeSonar Pro: Text, Images · Vision Large: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video · Qwen Max: Text
- Self-hostingNo open weightsAll three are available only through APIs
| Measure | Weight | Sonar Pro | Vision Large | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs & features | 60% | 25 | 100 | 25 |
| Context window | 40% | 32 | 60 | 0 |
| Overall | 100% | 28/100 | 84/100 | 15/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability and price. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Sonar ProPerplexity | Vision LargeVispark | Qwen MaxAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $3.00 | — | $1.60 (best) |
| Output | $15.00 | — | $6.40 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $6.00 | — | $2.80 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | — | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Perplexity API | — | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 200,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 32,768 tokens |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 65,536 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | Yes | No |
| Audio | No | Yes | No |
| Video | No | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | No | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | sonar-pro | — | qwen-max |
| API providers | 5 | — | 6 (best) |
| Released | Jan 1, 2024 | May 15, 2024 | Apr 3, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Sep 1, 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.
- Sonar Pro$60.00
- Vision Large—
- Qwen Max$28.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Sonar Pro, Vision Large or Qwen Max?
Vision Large is the better all-round choice, scoring 84/100 against Sonar Pro (28) and Qwen Max (15). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Sonar Pro, Vision Large or Qwen Max?
Qwen Max is cheaper at $1.60 input / $6.40 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). Sonar Pro costs $3.00 input / $15.00 output per million tokens (official Perplexity API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $2.80 per million tokens for Qwen Max versus $6.00 for Sonar Pro (2.1× as much). Vision Large has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Sonar Pro has not been scored yet, Vision Large has not been scored yet and Qwen Max has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Sonar Pro, Vision Large and Qwen Max yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Sonar Pro does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Vision Large has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 200,000 for Sonar Pro and 32,768 for Qwen Max. Maximum output per response: Sonar Pro up to 8,192, Vision Large up to 65,536, Qwen Max up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Sonar Pro accepts text and images; Vision Large accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video; Qwen Max accepts text. Vision Large handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
No. Sonar Pro, Vision Large and Qwen Max are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.
Which is newer?
Vision Large is the newest, released May 15, 2024. Qwen Max came out Apr 3, 2024; Sonar Pro came out Jan 1, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Sonar Pro Sep 1, 2025, Qwen Max 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.
