RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B vs SubQ 1M-Preview
RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B (2025) and SubQ 1M-Preview (2026) are frontier reasoning models from RWKV Project and Subquadratic. RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B ships a Infinite-token context window, while SubQ 1M-Preview ships a 1m-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. The goal is to make the tradeoff clear before deeper testing.
SubQ 1M-Preview is safer overall; choose RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B when provider fit matters.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B | SubQ 1M-Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Best for | general production evaluation | reasoning-heavy apps, tool-calling agents, and long-context analysis |
| Decision fit | Long context | RAG, Agents, and Long context |
| Context window | Infinite | 1m |
| Cheapest output | - | - |
| Provider routes | 0 tracked | 1 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 0 rows | 0 rows |
Decision tradeoffs
- RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- Local decision data tags RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B for Long context.
- SubQ 1M-Preview has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- SubQ 1M-Preview uniquely exposes Reasoning, Function calling, and Tool use in local model data.
- Local decision data tags SubQ 1M-Preview for RAG, Agents, and Long context.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.
RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
SubQ 1M-Preview
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 RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B and SubQ 1M-Preview; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- SubQ 1M-Preview adds Reasoning, Function calling, and Tool use in local capability data.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for SubQ 1M-Preview and RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Check replacement coverage for Reasoning, Function calling, and Tool use before moving production traffic.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2025-03-18 | 2026-05-05 |
| Context window | Infinite | 1m |
| Parameters | 2.9B | — |
| Architecture | decoder only | decoder only |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Proprietary |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | - |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B | SubQ 1M-Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | - | - |
| Output price | - | - |
| Providers | - |
Pricing not yet sourced for either model.
Capabilities
| Capability | RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B | SubQ 1M-Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | No | No |
| Multimodal | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Function calling | No | Yes |
| Tool use | No | Yes |
| Structured outputs | No | No |
| Code execution | No | No |
| IDE integration | No | No |
| Computer use | No | No |
| Parallel agents | No | No |
Benchmarks
No shared benchmark rows are currently sourced for this pair.
Deep dive
The capability footprint differs most on reasoning mode: SubQ 1M-Preview, function calling: SubQ 1M-Preview, and tool use: SubQ 1M-Preview. Both models share the core language-model surface, so the practical split is not just feature count. Use those differences to decide whether the page is about raw model quality, agentic coding support, multimodal ingestion, or predictable structured API behavior.
Pricing coverage is uneven: RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B has no token price sourced yet and SubQ 1M-Preview 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 RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B when provider fit are central to the workload. Choose SubQ 1M-Preview when reasoning depth 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 RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B or SubQ 1M-Preview open source?
RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B is listed under Apache 2.0. SubQ 1M-Preview is listed under Proprietary. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.
Which is better for reasoning mode, RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B or SubQ 1M-Preview?
SubQ 1M-Preview has the clearer documented reasoning mode signal in this comparison. If reasoning mode is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Which is better for function calling, RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B or SubQ 1M-Preview?
SubQ 1M-Preview has the clearer documented function calling signal in this comparison. If function calling is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Which is better for tool use, RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B or SubQ 1M-Preview?
SubQ 1M-Preview has the clearer documented tool use signal in this comparison. If tool use is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Where can I run RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B and SubQ 1M-Preview?
RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B is available on the tracked providers still being sourced. SubQ 1M-Preview is available on SubQ API. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
When should I pick RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B over SubQ 1M-Preview?
SubQ 1M-Preview is safer overall; choose RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B when provider fit matters. If your workload also depends on provider fit, start with RWKV-7 Goose 2.9B; if it depends on reasoning depth, run the same evaluation with SubQ 1M-Preview.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-05-25. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.