Baidu Qianfan vs CoreWeave: LLM provider comparison

At a glance

Metric winners

There is no overall score. Each winner answers one specific question using only directly comparable data.

Fastest on shared models

BQBaidu Qianfan

1.67× typical advantage

5 exact models with complete recent speed data

Lowest token cost

BQBaidu Qianfan

$1.1538 / 1M

5 exact models using a 1K-input/500-output mix

Most models available

CCoreWeave

20 models

Complete catalog coverage across all indexed modalities

Shared-model benchmark summary

Metric	BQBaidu Qianfan☆☆☆☆☆(0)	CCoreWeave☆☆☆☆☆(0)
Speed	Baidu Qianfan12.28 s	CoreWeave17.27 s
TTFT	Baidu Qianfan1.15 s	CoreWeave0.60 s
TPS	Baidu Qianfan45.0 tok/s	CoreWeave30.0 tok/s
Uptime	Baidu Qianfan99.94%	CoreWeave99.89%
Blended	Baidu Qianfan$1.1538 / 1M	CoreWeave$1.8533 / 1M

Model	BQBaidu Qianfan☆☆☆☆☆(0)	CCoreWeave☆☆☆☆☆(0)
ZA GLM 5.2Winner · Baidu Qianfan	Baidu Qianfan Speed— Best comparable value 12.28 s TTFT— Best comparable value 1.17 s TPS— Best comparable value 45.0 tok/s Uptime— Worst comparable value 99.58% Context 1M Route baidu/fp8 Blended— Best comparable value $1.368 / 1M	CoreWeave Speed— Worst comparable value 20.46 s TTFT— Worst comparable value 1.94 s TPS— Worst comparable value 27.0 tok/s Uptime— Best comparable value 99.96% Context 262.1K Route coreweave/fp4 Blended— Worst comparable value $2.3933 / 1M
D DeepSeek V4 ProWinner · Baidu Qianfan	Baidu Qianfan Speed— Best comparable value 9.47 s TTFT— Best comparable value 0.70 s TPS— Best comparable value 57.0 tok/s Uptime— Best comparable value 98.74% Context 1M Route baidu/fp8 Blended— Best comparable value $0.9937 / 1M	CoreWeave Speed— Worst comparable value 64.00 s TTFT— Worst comparable value 1.50 s TPS— Worst comparable value 8.0 tok/s Uptime— Worst comparable value 98.59% Context 1M Route coreweave/fp8 Blended— Worst comparable value $2.32 / 1M
D DeepSeek V4 FlashWinner · Baidu Qianfan	Baidu Qianfan Speed— Best comparable value 6.58 s TTFT— Worst comparable value 0.63 s TPS— Best comparable value 84.0 tok/s Uptime— Best comparable value 99.94% Context 1M Route baidu/fp8 Blended— Best comparable value $0.1311 / 1M	CoreWeave Speed— Worst comparable value 17.27 s TTFT— Best comparable value 0.60 s TPS— Worst comparable value 30.0 tok/s Uptime— Worst comparable value 99.85% Context 1M Route coreweave/fp8 Blended— Worst comparable value $0.1867 / 1M
M Kimi K2.6Winner · CoreWeave	Baidu Qianfan Speed— Worst comparable value 20.84 s TTFT— Worst comparable value 1.61 s TPS— Worst comparable value 26.0 tok/s Uptime— Best comparable value 100.00% Context 262.1K Route baidu/fp4 Blended— Best comparable value $1.596 / 1M	CoreWeave Speed— Best comparable value 3.30 s TTFT— Best comparable value 0.34 s TPS— Best comparable value 169.0 tok/s Uptime— Worst comparable value 99.89% Context 262.1K Route coreweave/fp4 Blended— Worst comparable value $1.9667 / 1M
ZA GLM 5.1Winner · CoreWeave	Baidu Qianfan Speed— Worst comparable value 13.65 s TTFT— Worst comparable value 1.15 s TPS— Worst comparable value 40.0 tok/s Uptime— Worst comparable value 99.96% Context 202.8K Route baidu/fp8 Blended— Best comparable value $1.68 / 1M	CoreWeave Speed— Best comparable value 4.38 s TTFT— Best comparable value 0.50 s TPS— Best comparable value 129.0 tok/s Uptime— Best comparable value 100.00% Context 202.8K Route coreweave/fp8 Blended— Worst comparable value $2.4 / 1M

A per-model winner combines blended price and estimated 500-token response time with equal proportional weight. Ties and rows missing either measurement receive no badge. Comparison data calculated Jul 24, 2026, 6:19 PM UTC. Values use one deterministic route per provider and model; missing measurements remain visible as N/a.