Side-by-side comparison
Qianfan-OCR-Fast vs Sonar
Baidu Qianfan
Qianfan-OCR-Fast
👁 Vision
Input / 1M
$0.6800
Output / 1M
$2.8100
| Qianfan-OCR-Fast | Sonar | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Baidu Qianfan | Perplexity |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 65,536 | 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 → | 0.6800 | 1.0000 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 2.8100 | 1.0000 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, Qianfan-OCR-Fast or Sonar?
Sonar is cheaper than Qianfan-OCR-Fast on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.745 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, Qianfan-OCR-Fast or Sonar?
Sonar has the larger context window at 127k tokens versus 66k tokens for Qianfan-OCR-Fast. That means Sonar can ingest about 1.9x as much text per request.
What is the difference between Qianfan-OCR-Fast and Sonar?
Qianfan-OCR-Fast 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.