Side-by-side comparison
ERNIE 4.5 VL 424B A47B vs Sonar
Baidu Qianfan
ERNIE 4.5 VL 424B A47B
👁 Vision
Input / 1M
$0.4200
Output / 1M
$1.2500
| ERNIE 4.5 VL 424B A47B | Sonar | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Baidu Qianfan | Perplexity |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 123,000 | 127,072 |
| Capabilities Optional capabilities the model advertises: vision (images), tools (function calling), json_mode (structured output). | vision | vision |
| Input $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens you send (prompt + context). Cheaper side highlighted. Glossary → | 0.4200 | 1.0000 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 1.2500 | 1.0000 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, ERNIE 4.5 VL 424B A47B or Sonar?
ERNIE 4.5 VL 424B A47B is cheaper than Sonar on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.165 per 1M tokens. Exact savings depend on your input-vs-output ratio — use the cost calculator on this page for a workload-specific estimate.
Which has a larger context window, ERNIE 4.5 VL 424B A47B or Sonar?
Sonar has the larger context window at 127k tokens versus 123k tokens for ERNIE 4.5 VL 424B A47B . That means Sonar can ingest about 1.0x as much text per request.
What is the difference between ERNIE 4.5 VL 424B A47B and Sonar?
ERNIE 4.5 VL 424B A47B comes from Baidu Qianfan; Sonar comes from Perplexity. They differ in pricing, context window, and supported capabilities — see the side-by-side table on this page for the exact figures, refreshed nightly.