Sonar vs Qwen-VL OCR
Qwen-VL OCR comes out ahead, 36 to 30 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
PerplexitySonar
30/100- ECI—
- Price$1.00 / $1.00
- Context128K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen-VL OCR
36/100- ECI—
- Price$0.72 / $0.72
- Context34K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Qwen-VL OCR is our pick
Qwen-VL OCR is the better all-round choice, scoring 36/100 against Sonar (30). It leads on price and inputs & features. Sonar wins on context window. 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-VL OCRQwen-VL OCR $0.72 · Sonar $1.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextSonarSonar 128,000 · Qwen-VL OCR 34,096 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen-VL OCRSonar: Text · Qwen-VL OCR: Text, Images
- Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
| Measure | Weight | Sonar | Qwen-VL OCR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 50 | 57 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 0 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 1 |
| Overall | 100% | 30/100 | 36/100 |
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 | SonarPerplexity | Qwen-VL OCRAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $1.00 | $0.72 (best) |
| Output | $1.00 | $0.72 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.00 | $0.72 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Perplexity API | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 128,000 tokens (best) | 34,096 tokens |
| Max output | 4,096 tokens | 4,096 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Tool calling | No | No |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | sonar | qwen-vl-ocr |
| API providers | 6 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Jan 1, 2024 | Oct 28, 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$12.00
- Qwen-VL OCR$8.64
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Sonar or Qwen-VL OCR?
Qwen-VL OCR is the better all-round choice, scoring 36/100 against Sonar (30). It leads on price and inputs & features. Sonar wins on context window. 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, Sonar or Qwen-VL OCR?
Qwen-VL OCR is cheaper at $0.72 input / $0.72 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). Sonar costs $1.00 input / $1.00 output per million tokens (official Perplexity API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.72 per million tokens for Qwen-VL OCR versus $1.00 for Sonar (1.4× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Sonar has not been scored yet and Qwen-VL OCR has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Sonar and Qwen-VL OCR yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Sonar and Qwen-VL OCR does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Sonar has the largest context window at 128,000 tokens, against 34,096 for Qwen-VL OCR. Maximum output per response: Sonar up to 4,096, Qwen-VL OCR up to 4,096 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Sonar accepts text; Qwen-VL OCR accepts text and images. Qwen-VL OCR handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
No. Sonar and Qwen-VL OCR are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.
Which is newer?
Qwen-VL OCR is the newest, released Oct 28, 2024. Sonar came out Jan 1, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Sonar Sep 1, 2025, Qwen-VL OCR 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.
