Skip to content
ProviderBench home

Same-model provider benchmark

Baidu Qianfan vs Wafer: LLM provider comparison

Compare Baidu Qianfan and Wafer on 3 exact shared text models. ProviderBench keeps speed, price, and catalog coverage separate so naturally faster model catalogs cannot distort the result.

Baidu Qianfan

7 indexed models

Headquarters
China
Server regions
N/a
Model types
7 text

Wafer

3 indexed models

Headquarters
United States
Server regions
N/a
Model types
3 text

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

Baidu Qianfan

1.28× typical advantage

3 exact models with complete recent speed data

Lowest token cost

Baidu Qianfan

$1.2539 / 1M

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

Most models available

Baidu Qianfan

7 models

Complete catalog coverage across all indexed modalities

Shared-model benchmark summary

MetricBaidu Qianfan(0)Wafer(0)
SpeedBaidu Qianfan11.84 sWafer14.75 s
TTFTBaidu Qianfan0.97 sWafer4.95 s
TPSBaidu Qianfan46.0 tok/sWafer53.0 tok/s
UptimeBaidu Qianfan99.50%Wafer100.00%
BlendedBaidu Qianfan$1.2539 / 1MWafer$1.9111 / 1M
Green value Better comparable resultRed value Worse comparable result

Visual comparison

Price and performance charts

Baidu QianfanWafer
500-token response by shared model

Estimated seconds using recent median response-start and output-speed data. Lower is better.

Baidu Qianfan has the lower typical same-model response ratio across 3 measured models.

Blended token price by shared model

USD per 1 million tokens using a 1,000-input/500-output mix. Lower is better.

Baidu Qianfan has the lower typical price ratio across 3 priced shared models.

Shared text models

3 exact models · newest first

ModelBaidu Qianfan(0)Wafer(0)
GLM 5.2Winner · Baidu Qianfan
Baidu Qianfan
Speed— Worst comparable value
13.72 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
1.22 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
40.0 tok/s
Uptime— Worst comparable value
99.43%
Context
1M
Route
baidu/fp8
Blended— Best comparable value
$1.248 / 1M
Wafer
Speed— Best comparable value
9.16 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
2.41 s
TPS— Best comparable value
74.0 tok/s
Uptime— Best comparable value
100.00%
Context
1M
Route
wafer/fp4
Blended— Worst comparable value
$2.4 / 1M
DeepSeek V4 ProWinner · Baidu Qianfan
Baidu Qianfan
Speed— Best comparable value
9.23 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
0.76 s
TPS— Best comparable value
59.0 tok/s
Uptime— Best comparable value
99.50%
Context
1M
Route
baidu/fp8
Blended— Best comparable value
$0.8337 / 1M
Wafer
Speed— Worst comparable value
14.75 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
4.95 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
51.0 tok/s
Uptime— Worst comparable value
99.28%
Context
1M
Route
wafer/fp4
Blended— Worst comparable value
$1.6 / 1M
GLM 5.1Winner · Baidu Qianfan
Baidu Qianfan
Speed— Best comparable value
11.84 s
TTFT— Best comparable value
0.97 s
TPS— Worst comparable value
46.0 tok/s
Uptime
100.00%
Context
202.8K
Route
baidu/fp8
Blended— Best comparable value
$1.68 / 1M
Wafer
Speed— Worst comparable value
15.15 s
TTFT— Worst comparable value
5.71 s
TPS— Best comparable value
53.0 tok/s
Uptime
100.00%
Context
202.8K
Route
wafer/fp4
Blended— Worst comparable value
$1.7333 / 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 . Values use one deterministic route per provider and model; missing measurements remain visible as N/a.

Baidu Qianfan vs Wafer analysis

How Baidu Qianfan and Wafer compare for AI inference

Baidu Qianfan and Wafer share 3 indexed text models, including GLM 5.2, DeepSeek V4 Pro, GLM 5.1. Baidu Qianfan has the stronger typical response-time result on the directly measured set.

Same-model speed evidence

3 shared models currently have complete response-start and output-speed measurements on both providers. The speed comparison uses per-model ratios before taking the median, so naturally faster model catalogs do not improve the result.

Token pricing on one workload

3 shared models have complete input and output prices on both providers. Prices use the same 1,000-input/500-output-token mix and are normalized to one million tokens for readability.

Catalog and deployment differences

Baidu Qianfan has 7 indexed models and lists no published server regions; Wafer has 3 models and lists no regions. Verify data residency, privacy terms, limits, and production latency directly before choosing.

Related same-model benchmarks

Compare with other providers

Explore qualified alternatives with the most shared measured models. Recommendations include comparisons for both Baidu Qianfan and Wafer.

Baidu Qianfan vs AtlasCloud

7 shared model benchmarks

Wafer vs CoreWeave

3 shared model benchmarks

Baidu Qianfan vs DeepInfra

7 shared model benchmarks

Wafer vs DigitalOcean

3 shared model benchmarks

Baidu Qianfan vs NovitaAI

7 shared model benchmarks

Wafer vs Fireworks

3 shared model benchmarks