Both of these listings advertise context windows that make a whole contract, a whole repository, or a whole quarter of meeting notes look tractable. That is the easy part of the comparison. The harder part is that a long input turns four other fields into the deciding ones.
Decide on hosting before you decide on quality
If the documents cannot leave your network, the hosted endpoint is out regardless of how well it summarises, and you are sizing the weights against a card you own. If they can leave, hosting is free and the comparison moves to price and latency. Write this answer down first; it eliminates one side of the table more often than any benchmark row.
Price at volume, not per call
Long documents mean large inputs, and most hosted pricing bills input by volume. A model that looks cheap per call becomes the expensive one the moment every request carries a hundred thousand tokens. Read the pricing rows with your real average input length, not with a short demo prompt.
Context length is a ceiling, not a capability
Both windows look sufficient. Neither tells you whether the paragraph you need, placed at the start of a very long input, is attended to as reliably as the same paragraph at the end. The practical fix is the same for both: name the section, pass only that section, and keep the rest out. A model that fits the whole document is not a licence to stop selecting.
What the generated verdict is worth
The paragraph block under the table is produced from the selected rows only. It will tell you which listing has the longer window, the lower advertised price, and the open-source mark. It will not tell you which one handles your document. For that, run the same section through both and have a colleague who knows the contract read the two outputs without knowing which model wrote which.