Mistral Nemo vs Qwen2.5 72B Instruct vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Mistral Nemo comes out ahead, 48 to 44 and 40 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
Mistral AI
Mistral Nemo
48/100- ECI118.7
- Price$0.15 / $0.15
- Context128K
Alibaba (Qwen)
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
40/100- ECI129.0
- Price$1.40 / $5.60
- Context131K
Alibaba (Qwen)
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
44/100- ECI118.5
- Price$0.175 / $0.70
- Context131K
Mistral Nemo is our pick
Mistral Nemo is the better all-round choice, scoring 48/100 against Qwen2.5 7B Instruct (44) and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct (40). It leads on price. Qwen2.5 72B Instruct wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityQwen2.5 72B InstructCapabilities Index (ECI): Qwen2.5 72B Instruct 129.0 · Mistral Nemo 118.7 · Qwen2.5 7B Instruct 118.5
- Lowest priceMistral NemoMistral Nemo $0.15 · Qwen2.5 7B Instruct $0.306 · Qwen2.5 72B Instruct $2.45 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen2.5 72B Instruct and Qwen2.5 7B InstructQwen2.5 72B Instruct 131,072 · Qwen2.5 7B Instruct 131,072 · Mistral Nemo 128,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsMistral Nemo: Text · Qwen2.5 72B Instruct: Text · Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Mistral Nemo | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 39 | 52 | 38 |
| Price | 25% | 89 | 31 | 74 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 25 | 25 | 25 |
| Context window | 10% | 24 | 24 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 48/100 | 40/100 | 44/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 118.7 | 129.0 (best) | 118.5 |
| ECI rank | #140 of 148 | #128 of 148 (best) | #141 of 148 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 29.9% | 49.2% (best) | 35.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | — | 8.1% (best) | 2.5% |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.15 (best) | $1.40 | $0.175 |
| Output | $0.15 (best) | $5.60 | $0.70 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.15 (best) | $2.45 | $0.306 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Mistral API | Official Alibaba API | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 128,000 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 128,000 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | 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 | Open |
| API model ID | mistral-nemo | qwen2-5-72b-instruct | qwen2-5-7b-instruct |
| API providers | 5 (best) | 1 | 1 |
| Released | Jul 1, 2024 | Sep 19, 2024 | Sep 19, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jul 2024 | Apr 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 Nemo$1.80
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct$25.20
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct$3.15
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Mistral Nemo, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?
Mistral Nemo is the better all-round choice, scoring 48/100 against Qwen2.5 7B Instruct (44) and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct (40). It leads on price. Qwen2.5 72B Instruct wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, Mistral Nemo, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?
Mistral Nemo is cheaper at $0.15 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (official Mistral API price). Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs $0.175 input / $0.70 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price); Qwen2.5 72B Instruct costs $1.40 input / $5.60 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.15 per million tokens for Mistral Nemo versus $0.306 for Qwen2.5 7B Instruct (2× as much) and $2.45 for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct (16× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen2.5 72B Instruct 129.0 (#128 of 148), Mistral Nemo 118.7 (#140 of 148) and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct 118.5 (#141 of 148). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (123.8–130.7 vs 111.3–121.5), so the gap is a real one. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Qwen2.5 72B Instruct 49.2%, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct 35.5%, Mistral Nemo 29.9%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Mistral Nemo, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct 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?
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct 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: Mistral Nemo up to 128,000, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct up to 8,192, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Mistral Nemo accepts text; Qwen2.5 72B Instruct accepts text; Qwen2.5 7B Instruct accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, all three publish their weights, so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct is the newest, released Sep 19, 2024. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct came out Sep 19, 2024; Mistral Nemo came out Jul 1, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Mistral Nemo Jul 2024, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct Apr 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.