Aquila 2 7B vs Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1
Aquila 2 7B (2023) and Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 (2025) are compact production models from Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence (BAAI) and NVIDIA AI. Aquila 2 7B ships a not-yet-sourced context window, while Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 ships a 128K-token context window. This comparison covers specs, pricing, capabilities, benchmarks, provider availability, and production fit. It focuses on practical selection signals rather than broad model-family marketing.
Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 is safer overall; choose Aquila 2 7B when provider fit matters.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Aquila 2 7B | Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 |
|---|---|---|
| Decision fit | General | Long context |
| Context window | — | 128K |
| Cheapest output | - | - |
| Provider routes | 0 tracked | 1 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 0 rows | 0 rows |
Decision tradeoffs
- Use Aquila 2 7B when your own prompt tests beat the comparison signals; the local data does not show a decisive standalone advantage yet.
- Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- Local decision data tags Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 for Long context.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output prices on this page.
Aquila 2 7B
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1
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 7B and Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 and Aquila 2 7B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2023-11-02 | 2025-06-01 |
| Context window | — | 128K |
| Parameters | 7B | 49B |
| Architecture | decoder only | decoder only |
| License | Unknown | 1 |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | - |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Aquila 2 7B | Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | - | - |
| Output price | - | - |
| Providers | - |
Pricing not yet sourced for either model.
Capabilities
| Capability | Aquila 2 7B | Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
Benchmarks
No shared benchmark rows are currently sourced 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 7B has no token price sourced yet and Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 has no token price sourced yet. Provider availability is 0 tracked routes versus 1. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.
Choose Aquila 2 7B when provider fit are central to the workload. Choose Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 when provider fit and broader provider choice 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
Is Aquila 2 7B or Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 open source?
Aquila 2 7B is listed under Unknown. Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 is listed under 1. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.
Where can I run Aquila 2 7B and Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1?
Aquila 2 7B is available on the tracked providers still being sourced. Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 is available on NVIDIA NIM. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
When should I pick Aquila 2 7B over Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1?
Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 is safer overall; choose Aquila 2 7B when provider fit matters. If your workload also depends on provider fit, start with Aquila 2 7B; if it depends on provider fit, run the same evaluation with Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.
What is the main difference between Aquila 2 7B and Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1?
Aquila 2 7B and Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 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: 2026-05-14. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.