Mistral Large 2.1 vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct comes out ahead, 44 to 38 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Mistral AIMistral Large 2.1
38/100- ECI128.5
- Price$2.00 / $6.00
- Context131K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
44/100- ECI118.5
- Price$0.175 / $0.70
- Context131K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is our pick
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is the better all-round choice, scoring 44/100 against Mistral Large 2.1 (38). It leads on price. Mistral Large 2.1 wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityMistral Large 2.1Capabilities Index (ECI): Mistral Large 2.1 128.5 · Qwen2.5 7B Instruct 118.5
- Lowest priceQwen2.5 7B InstructQwen2.5 7B Instruct $0.306 · Mistral Large 2.1 $3.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextAbout the sameMistral Large 2.1 131,072 · Qwen2.5 7B Instruct 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsMistral Large 2.1: Text · Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Mistral Large 2.1 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 51 | 38 |
| Price | 25% | 27 | 74 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 25 | 25 |
| Context window | 10% | 24 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 38/100 | 44/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Mistral Large 2.1Mistral AI | Qwen2.5 7B InstructAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 128.5 (best) | 118.5 |
| ECI rank | #130 of 148 (best) | #141 of 148 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 51.3% (best) | 35.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 7.8% (best) | 2.5% |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $2.00 | $0.175 (best) |
| Output | $6.00 | $0.70 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $3.00 | $0.306 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Mistral API | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 16,384 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Open |
| API model ID | mistral-large-2411 | qwen2-5-7b-instruct |
| API providers | 2 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Nov 18, 2024 | Sep 19, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Nov 2024 | Apr 2024 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Mistral Large 2.1$32.00
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct$3.15
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Mistral Large 2.1 or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is the better all-round choice, scoring 44/100 against Mistral Large 2.1 (38). It leads on price. Mistral Large 2.1 wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, Mistral Large 2.1 or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is cheaper at $0.175 input / $0.70 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). Mistral Large 2.1 costs $2.00 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (official Mistral API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.306 per million tokens for Qwen2.5 7B Instruct versus $3.00 for Mistral Large 2.1 (9.8× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Mistral Large 2.1 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Mistral Large 2.1 128.5 (#130 of 148) and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct 118.5 (#141 of 148). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (123.8–130.8 vs 110.7–121.3), so the gap is a real one. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Mistral Large 2.1 51.3%, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct 35.5%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Mistral Large 2.1 7.8%, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct 2.5%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Mistral Large 2.1 and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Mistral Large 2.1 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Mistral Large 2.1 and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct share the same 131,072-token context window. Maximum output per response: Mistral Large 2.1 up to 16,384, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Mistral Large 2.1 accepts text; Qwen2.5 7B Instruct accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights, so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Mistral Large 2.1 is the newest, released Nov 18, 2024. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct came out Sep 19, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Mistral Large 2.1 Nov 2024, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct Apr 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 Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Qwen2.5 72B InstructThree-way comparison
- Mistral Large 2.1 vs Qwen2.5 72B InstructAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 129.0
- Mistral Large 2.1 vs GPT-4oOpenAI · ECI 129.0
- Mistral Large 2.1 vs Claude Haiku 3.5Anthropic · ECI 127.2
- Mistral Large 2.1 vs Nova ProAmazon · ECI 123.8
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct vs Mistral NemoMistral AI · ECI 118.7
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct vs Claude Haiku 3Anthropic · ECI 118.4
