Gemma 3 12B IT vs Mistral Nemo vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Gemma 3 12B IT comes out ahead, 57 to 50 and 47 on our weighted score, though Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is 17% cheaper per token.
- Our pick
Google
Gemma 3 12B IT
57/100- ECI123.5
- Price$0.05 / $0.15
- Context131K
Mistral AI
Mistral Nemo
47/100- ECI118.6
- Price$0.12 / $0.13
- Context128K
Alibaba (Qwen)
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
50/100- ECI118.5
- Price$0.05 / $0.10
- Context131K
Gemma 3 12B IT is our pick
Gemma 3 12B IT is the better all-round choice, scoring 57/100 against Qwen2.5 7B Instruct (50) and Mistral Nemo (47). It leads on capability and inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityGemma 3 12B ITCapabilities Index (ECI): Gemma 3 12B IT 123.5 · Mistral Nemo 118.6 · Qwen2.5 7B Instruct 118.5
- Lowest priceQwen2.5 7B InstructQwen2.5 7B Instruct $0.063 · Gemma 3 12B IT $0.075 · Mistral Nemo $0.123 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGemma 3 12B IT and Qwen2.5 7B InstructGemma 3 12B IT 131,072 · Qwen2.5 7B Instruct 131,072 · Mistral Nemo 128,000 tokens
- Widest inputsGemma 3 12B ITGemma 3 12B IT: Text, Images · Mistral Nemo: Text · Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Gemma 3 12B IT | Mistral Nemo | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 44 | 38 | 38 |
| Price | 25% | 99 | 89 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 50 | 25 | 25 |
| Context window | 10% | 25 | 24 | 25 |
| Overall | 100% | 57/100 | 47/100 | 50/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 123.5 (best) | 118.6 | 118.5 |
| ECI rank | #151 of 165 (best) | #157 of 165 | #159 of 165 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 39.5% (best) | 29.9% | 35.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 16.7% (best) | — | 2.5% |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.05 (best) | $0.12 | $0.05 (best) |
| Output | $0.15 | $0.13 | $0.10 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.075 | $0.123 | $0.063 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 12 providers | Median of 12 providers | Median of 3 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens (best) | 128,000 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 128,000 tokens | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Open | OpenApache 2.0 |
| API model ID | — | — | — |
| API providers | 13 (best) | 12 | 4 |
| Released | Mar 12, 2025 | Jul 18, 2024 | Sep 19, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Aug 2024 | Jul 2024 | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
Gemma 3 12B IT$0.80
Mistral Nemo$1.46
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct$0.70
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Gemma 3 12B IT, Mistral Nemo or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?
Gemma 3 12B IT is the better all-round choice, scoring 57/100 against Qwen2.5 7B Instruct (50) and Mistral Nemo (47). It leads on capability and inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 3 12B IT, Mistral Nemo or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is cheaper at $0.05 input / $0.10 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). Gemma 3 12B IT costs $0.05 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (median across 12 API providers); Mistral Nemo costs $0.12 input / $0.13 output per million tokens (median across 12 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.063 per million tokens for Qwen2.5 7B Instruct versus $0.075 for Gemma 3 12B IT (1.2× as much) and $0.123 for Mistral Nemo (2× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Gemma 3 12B IT scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Gemma 3 12B IT 123.5 (#151 of 165), Mistral Nemo 118.6 (#157 of 165) and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct 118.5 (#159 of 165). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (116.9–128.4 vs 111.6–121.6), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Gemma 3 12B IT 39.5%, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct 35.5%, Mistral Nemo 29.9%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemma 3 12B IT, Mistral Nemo and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Gemma 3 12B IT leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemma 3 12B IT and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct have the largest context windows (131,072 and 131,072 tokens), against 128,000 for Mistral Nemo. Maximum output per response: Gemma 3 12B IT up to 131,072, Mistral Nemo up to 128,000, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Gemma 3 12B IT accepts text and images; Mistral Nemo accepts text; Qwen2.5 7B Instruct accepts text. Gemma 3 12B IT handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, all three publish their weights (Apache 2.0), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Gemma 3 12B IT is the newest, released Mar 12, 2025. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct came out Sep 19, 2024; Mistral Nemo came out Jul 18, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Gemma 3 12B IT Aug 2024, Mistral Nemo Jul 2024.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.