Aquila 2 34B vs Marin 32B Base
Aquila 2 34B (2023) and Marin 32B Base (2025) are compact production models from Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence (BAAI) and Marin. Aquila 2 34B ships a 2k-token context window, while Marin 32B Base ships a 4k-token context window. This comparison covers specs, pricing, API access, capabilities, benchmarks, input and output token costs, and production fit for coding and agent workloads.
Marin 32B Base is safer overall; choose Aquila 2 34B when provider fit matters.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Aquila 2 34B | Marin 32B Base |
|---|---|---|
| Best for | general production evaluation | general production evaluation |
| Decision fit | General | General |
| Context window | 2k | 4k |
| Cheapest output | - | - |
| Provider routes | 0 tracked | 0 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 0 shared | 0 shared |
Decision tradeoffs
- Use Aquila 2 34B when your own prompt tests beat the comparison signals; the local data does not show a decisive standalone advantage yet.
- Marin 32B Base has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.
Aquila 2 34B
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
Marin 32B Base
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
Cost delta unavailable until both models have sourced input and output token prices.
Switch friction
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Aquila 2 34B and Marin 32B Base; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Marin 32B Base and Aquila 2 34B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2023-11-02 | 2025-10-25 |
| Context window | 2k | 4k |
| Parameters | 34B | 32.5B |
| Architecture | Decoder Only | Decoder Only |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0OSI-approved |
| Openness | Proprietary | Open source |
| Commercial use | Commercial use: conditional | Commercial use: permitted |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | 2024-07 |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Aquila 2 34B | Marin 32B Base |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | - | - |
| Output price | - | - |
| Providers | - | - |
Pricing not yet sourced for either model.
Capabilities
| Capability | Aquila 2 34B | Marin 32B Base |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | No | No |
| Multimodal | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Function calling | No | No |
| Tool use | No | No |
| Structured outputs | No | No |
| Code execution | No | No |
| IDE integration | No | No |
| Computer use | No | No |
| Parallel agents | No | No |
Benchmarks
No shared benchmark scores are currently available for this pair.
Deep dive
The capability footprint is close: both models cover the core production surface. That makes context budget, benchmark fit, and provider maturity more important than a simple checklist. If your application depends on one integration detail, verify it against the provider route you plan to use, not just the base model listing.
Pricing coverage is uneven: Aquila 2 34B has no token price sourced yet and Marin 32B Base has no token price sourced yet. Provider availability is 0 tracked routes versus 0. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.
Choose Aquila 2 34B when provider fit are central to the workload. Choose Marin 32B Base when long-context analysis and larger context windows are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship. This keeps the decision grounded in measurable tradeoffs instead of brand-level assumptions. It also helps separate model capability from provider packaging, which can change cost and latency. For teams standardizing a stack, that distinction is often the difference between a benchmark win and a reliable deployment.
FAQ
Which has a larger context window, Aquila 2 34B or Marin 32B Base?
Marin 32B Base supports 4k tokens, while Aquila 2 34B supports 2k tokens. That gap matters most for long documents, large codebases, retrieval-heavy agents, and conversations where earlier context must remain visible.
Is Aquila 2 34B or Marin 32B Base open source?
Aquila 2 34B is listed under Proprietary. Marin 32B Base is listed under Apache 2.0. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.
When should I pick Aquila 2 34B over Marin 32B Base?
Marin 32B Base is safer overall; choose Aquila 2 34B when provider fit matters. If your workload also depends on provider fit, start with Aquila 2 34B; if it depends on long-context analysis, run the same evaluation with Marin 32B Base.
What is the main difference between Aquila 2 34B and Marin 32B Base?
Aquila 2 34B and Marin 32B Base differ most on context, provider coverage, capabilities, or pricing depending on the data currently sourced. Use the specs table first, then validate the model behavior with your own prompts.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-05-19. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.