Guides → Playground & Guide → Chinese Open-Weight Models: What an MSP Needs to Know Before Saying Yes

Chinese Open-Weight Models: What an MSP Needs to Know Before Saying Yes

Meet Dan Whitfield. vCIO at a 40-client MSP. "A client saw that a Chinese model beats the expensive ones at a tenth of the cost. Can we use it, and what do I say if not?"

🔥 I do not want to say no just because it is Chinese, and I do not want to be the one who put patient records on a Hangzhou server.

The story

Start with the route, not the model. There are four, and they have different answers: the vendor's own hosted API, a US managed host running the same weights, deployment on your client's existing AWS or Azure agreement, and self-hosting on infrastructure they control.

Only the first is usually blocked. The jurisdiction problem attaches to where the endpoint runs, not to who trained the weights. Moving the weights moves the answer.

Then check whether the mitigation is real. Self-hosting is the standard advice and is frequently unavailable: a frontier mixture-of-experts model can need over a terabyte of accelerator memory, which is not a procurement decision for a 200-seat client.

Then check the licence. Downloadable weights are not the same as a commercial licence, and 'open weight' is not 'open source'.

Use cases

Same calculator, different applications. Sizes above, workloads here. Pick the one that looks like yours.

Pre-loaded scenarios for the most common applications. Click a tab to see realistic numbers, then hit "Try this scenario" to load it into the calculator above.

See inputs used

Ready to run the numbers?

Open the full calculator. Pick a model, enter your tokens, see per-call, daily, monthly, and annual cost.

🚀 Open the full calculator →

Top 3 right now

Verified 12 hours ago

About this calculator: Chinese Open-Weight Models: What an MSP Needs to Know Before Saying Yes

A short, honest guide for MSPs. What DeepSeek and Kimi actually publish, where the jurisdiction line falls, when self-hosting is real, and the routes that turn a blocked model into a usable one.

Reading your result

DeepSeek, hosted API. No SOC 2, no ISO, no HIPAA, no trust portal, verified absent 2026-07-26. Processing in China with no residency option, and the residency is fixed. Blocked for regulated data.

DeepSeek, other routes. Weights are downloadable, so a US managed host, a hyperscaler deployment or self-hosting all change the answer. The hyperscaler route is usually fastest, because the client's existing cloud agreement already covers it.

Kimi K3, Moonshot. Frontier scale at 2.8 trillion parameters. No trust portal found. Weights were promised and, at the time of capture, independent trackers still listed the model as proprietary. Announced is not shipped.

Qwen, GLM, Yi. Same shape as DeepSeek and worth the same four-route treatment. They appear in router catalogues by default, which matters more than whether you chose them.

What "good" looks like:
  • Cost: Chinese open-weight models commonly run 3 to 10 times cheaper per token than a Western frontier model, but the newest are not always cheap. Kimi K3 launched at $3 in and $15 out per 1M, the most expensive Chinese release to date.
  • Self-host memory, 4-bit: a 70B dense model is about 35 GB. A 1.6T mixture-of-experts is about 800 GB. A 2.8T is about 1,400 GB, roughly 37 professional cards.
  • Realistic self-host ceiling for an SMB: one to two professional GPUs, so dense models up to about 70B. Frontier MoE is rented, hyperscaler-hosted, or not happening.

What this calculator can't tell you

Honest limitations. Every model is wrong; some are useful. Where this one falls short:

For these, use: Run jurisdiction-risk-scorer per endpoint to turn a model into a green, amber or red verdict against the client's data class,Run msp-open-weight-suitability to check whether self-hosting is genuinely available for this client's hardware,Run msp-client-ai-exposure-audit to find whether a router can already reach one of these without anyone approving it

Most popular

Everything above is the 80% case. The last 20% is where the money is.

The gaps we just listed are real, and they are the expensive ones: your actual prompts, your switching cost, your MLOps overhead. An AICost expert spends the hour on your AI and cloud costs, not a generic playbook. You leave with a written report: the way forward, in 30 days of concrete steps.

  • An hour with the people who built the engines
  • Report the same day
  • The fee credits toward any AICost plan
  • Two slots a week
Book a Solution Session: $299 → or $99 for small business →

Not sure yet? The $39 AICost Blueprint credits toward a Session, and the Session fee credits toward any plan. You never pay twice for the same ground. See all pricing →

Ready to run your own numbers?

You have seen the shape of it. Open the calculator with your model, your tokens, your volume.

🚀 Open the full calculator →

Where to go next

Methodology

Editorial gate
8-layer defense, see aicost.ai/ai-cost-economics
Last verified
7/27/2026, 8:00:00 PM

Author: Subu Vdaygiri, Founder & CEO of CloudIntelligence.ai. 17 years Fortune 100 (Ingram Micro, Siemens). Wharton CTO program · Kellogg CPO program · 10× AWS+Azure certified.

📖 Data sources & methodology 163 text models · 9 embeddings · 37 vision · 55 audio · 8 vector DBs across 10 vendor pages · last verified 2026-07-28

Methodology

  • All prices are USD per 1 million tokens, current as of 2026-07-28.
  • Vendor-published values have no mark. Inferred/extrapolated values are marked with * and listed below.
  • Batch API discounts are 50% off standard rates across providers that offer Batch mode.
  • Prompt caching discounts vary by provider (typically 80-90% off cached input tokens).
  • Regional data-residency surcharges (Anthropic 1.1x, OpenAI 1.1x, Google regional tiers) are NOT included in base rates.
  • Long-context pricing tiers apply when input exceeds model threshold.
  • Embedding prices are input-only (no output tokens generated).

Primary sources

Last-verified date is the most recent successful daily snapshot (aicost_pricing_snapshots) or, when no snapshot exists yet, the latest successful crawler run (aicost_crawler_runs). 10 of 10 vendors are currently verified. Aggregator services (TokenCost, AI Pricing Guru, etc.) are not listed.

Anthropic
2026-07-28
https://www.anthropic.com/pricing
Daily snapshot since Sep 2023 · 631 days captured
Anthropic Docs
2026-07-28
https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/pricing
Daily snapshot since Sep 2023 · 631 days captured
OpenAI
2026-07-28
https://openai.com/api/pricing/
Daily snapshot since Sep 2023 · 632 days captured
Google AI
2026-07-28
https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing
Daily snapshot since Dec 2023 · 607 days captured
Google Vertex
2026-07-28
https://cloud.google.com/vertex-ai/generative-ai/pricing
Daily snapshot since Dec 2023 · 607 days captured
DeepSeek
2026-07-28
https://api-docs.deepseek.com/quick_start/pricing
Daily snapshot since May 2024 · 546 days captured
xAI
2026-07-28
https://x.ai/api
Daily snapshot since Nov 2024 · 464 days captured
Mistral
2026-07-28
https://mistral.ai/pricing
Daily snapshot since Dec 2023 · 605 days captured
Cohere
2026-07-28
https://cohere.com/pricing
Daily snapshot since Sep 2023 · 631 days captured

Inferred values (marked with * in calculator tables)

Derived from industry conventions, not directly published by the vendor. Typical conventions: cached input = 10% of base (90% off), Batch API = 50% of base (50% off).

Vendor / Model Field Why it’s inferred
Anthropic — Claude Sonnet 4.6 cachedInput Derived at 10% of input rate — Anthropic publishes 90% cache-hit discount on this tier.
Anthropic — Claude Sonnet 4.5 cachedInput Derived at 10% of input rate; same 90% cache-hit convention as Sonnet 4.6.
Anthropic — Claude Sonnet 4.5 batchInput Derived at 50% of standard input — Anthropic documents uniform 50% Batch discount.
Anthropic — Claude Sonnet 4.5 batchOutput Derived at 50% of standard output — Anthropic documents uniform 50% Batch discount.
Anthropic — Claude Haiku 4.5 cachedInput Derived at 10% of input rate — Anthropic 90% cache-hit discount convention.
OpenAI — GPT-5.4 Mini cachedInput Derived at 10% of input — OpenAI documents automatic 90% discount on cache hits across GPT-5.x tier.
OpenAI — GPT-5.4 Nano cachedInput Derived at 10% of input — OpenAI 90% cache-hit convention.
OpenAI — GPT-5.4 Nano batchInput Derived at 50% of input — OpenAI Batch API uniform 50% discount.
OpenAI — GPT-5.4 Nano batchOutput Derived at 50% of output — OpenAI Batch API uniform 50% discount.
OpenAI — GPT-5.4 Pro cachedInput Derived at 10% of input — OpenAI 90% cache-hit convention.
OpenAI — GPT-5.4 Pro batchInput Derived at 50% of input — OpenAI Batch API uniform 50% discount.
OpenAI — GPT-5.4 Pro batchOutput Derived at 50% of output — OpenAI Batch API uniform 50% discount.
OpenAI — GPT-5.2 cachedInput Derived at 10% of input; no residency uplift.
OpenAI — GPT-5.2 batchInput Derived at 50% of input.
OpenAI — GPT-5.2 batchOutput Derived at 50% of output.
OpenAI — GPT-5 cachedInput Derived at 10% of input.
OpenAI — GPT-5 batchInput Derived at 50% of input.
OpenAI — GPT-5 batchOutput Derived at 50% of output.
OpenAI — GPT-5.5 Pro cachedInput Derived at 10% of input — OpenAI does not publish a cached rate for *-pro models; using the family convention.
OpenAI — GPT-5.5 Pro batchInput Derived at 50% of input.
OpenAI — GPT-5.5 Pro batchOutput Derived at 50% of output.
OpenAI — GPT-5.2 Pro cachedInput Derived at 10% of input — pro-tier convention.
OpenAI — GPT-5.2 Pro batchInput Derived at 50% of input.
OpenAI — GPT-5.2 Pro batchOutput Derived at 50% of output.
OpenAI — GPT-5.1 batchInput Derived at 50% of input.
OpenAI — GPT-5.1 batchOutput Derived at 50% of output.
OpenAI — GPT-5 Pro batchInput Derived at 50% of input.
OpenAI — GPT-5 Pro batchOutput Derived at 50% of output.
OpenAI — GPT-5 Nano cachedInput Derived at 10% of input.
OpenAI — GPT-5 Nano batchInput Derived at 50% of input.
OpenAI — GPT-5 Nano batchOutput Derived at 50% of output.
Google — Gemini 3 Flash cachedInput Derived at 10% of input — Google caching discount convention ~90%.
Google — Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite cachedInput Derived at 10% of input — Google caching convention.
Google — Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite batchInput Derived at 50% of input — Google Batch API uniform 50% discount.
Google — Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite batchOutput Derived at 50% of output — Google Batch API uniform 50% discount.
Google — Gemini 2.5 Pro cachedInput Derived at 10% of input.
Google — Gemini 2.5 Flash cachedInput Derived at 10% of input.
Google — Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite cachedInput Derived at 10% of input — Google caching convention.
Google — Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite batchInput Derived at 50% of input — Google Batch API uniform 50% discount.
Google — Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite batchOutput Derived at 50% of output — Google Batch API uniform 50% discount.
Google — Gemini 2.0 Flash cachedInput Derived at 25% of input per Google 2.0 family caching rates.
Google — Gemini 2.0 Flash batchInput Derived at 50% of input — Google Batch API uniform 50% discount.
Google — Gemini 2.0 Flash batchOutput Derived at 50% of output — Google Batch API uniform 50% discount.
Google — Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite cachedInput Derived at 10% of input — Google caching convention.
Google — Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite batchInput Derived at 50% of input — Google Batch API uniform 50% discount.
Google — Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite batchOutput Derived at 50% of output — Google Batch API uniform 50% discount.
xAI — Grok 4 (legacy) cachedInput Extrapolated at 25% of base.

Pricing is cross-verified against the LiteLLM community registry when available. Daily snapshots are kept in aicost_pricing_snapshots; every change is logged to aicost_price_changelog with old & new values for full audit trail. Read the full methodology →