Qwen-MT Plus vs Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B vs Step 1 (32K)
Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B comes out ahead, 49 to 18 and 12 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen-MT Plus
12/100- ECI—
- Price$2.46 / $7.37
- Context16K
- Our pickAlibaba (Qwen)
Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B
49/100- ECI88.2
- Price$0.10 / $0.10
- Context33K
StepFunStep 1 (32K)
18/100- ECI—
- Price$2.05 / $9.59
- Context33K
Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B is our pick
Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B is the better all-round choice, scoring 49/100 against Step 1 (32K) (18) and Qwen-MT Plus (12). It leads on price. Step 1 (32K) wins on inputs & features. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceQwen2.5-Coder-0.5BQwen2.5-Coder-0.5B $0.10 · Qwen-MT Plus $3.69 · Step 1 (32K) $3.94 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen2.5-Coder-0.5B and Step 1 (32K)Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B 32,768 · Step 1 (32K) 32,768 · Qwen-MT Plus 16,384 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsQwen-MT Plus: Text · Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B: Text · Step 1 (32K): Text
- Self-hostingQwen2.5-Coder-0.5BPublishes downloadable weights (Apache 2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Qwen-MT Plus | Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B | Step 1 (32K) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 23 | 97 | 22 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 0 | 0 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Overall | 100% | 12/100 | 49/100 | 18/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Qwen-MT PlusAlibaba (Qwen) | Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5BAlibaba (Qwen) | Step 1 (32K)StepFun |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | 88.2 | — |
| ECI rank | — | #148 of 148 | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $2.46 | $0.10 (best) | $2.05 |
| Output | $7.37 | $0.10 (best) | $9.59 |
| Cached input | — | — | $0.41 |
| Blended (3:1) | $3.69 | $0.10 (best) | $3.94 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Alibaba API | Median of 1 providers | Official StepFun (Global) API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 16,384 tokens | 32,768 tokens (best) | 32,768 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 8,192 tokens | 32,768 tokens (best) |
| 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 | No | No | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | OpenApache 2.0 | Proprietary |
| API model ID | qwen-mt-plus | — | step-1-32k |
| API providers | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Released | Jan 2025 | Nov 12, 2024 | Jan 1, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2024 | — | Jun 2024 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Qwen-MT Plus$39.34
- Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B$1.20
- Step 1 (32K)$39.68
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen-MT Plus, Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B or Step 1 (32K)?
Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B is the better all-round choice, scoring 49/100 against Step 1 (32K) (18) and Qwen-MT Plus (12). It leads on price. Step 1 (32K) wins on inputs & features. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Qwen-MT Plus, Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B or Step 1 (32K)?
Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.10 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Qwen-MT Plus costs $2.46 input / $7.37 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price); Step 1 (32K) costs $2.05 input / $9.59 output per million tokens (official StepFun (Global) API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.10 per million tokens for Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B versus $3.69 for Qwen-MT Plus (37× as much) and $3.94 for Step 1 (32K) (39× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Qwen-MT Plus has not been scored yet, Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B has an ECI of 88.2 and Step 1 (32K) has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen-MT Plus, Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B and Step 1 (32K) yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Qwen-MT Plus and Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B and Step 1 (32K) have the largest context windows (32,768 and 32,768 tokens), against 16,384 for Qwen-MT Plus. Maximum output per response: Qwen-MT Plus up to 8,192, Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B up to 8,192, Step 1 (32K) up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen-MT Plus accepts text; Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B accepts text; Step 1 (32K) accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B publishes its weights (Apache 2.0) and can be self-hosted; Qwen-MT Plus and Step 1 (32K) is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen-MT Plus is the newest, released Jan 2025. Step 1 (32K) came out Jan 1, 2025; Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B came out Nov 12, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen-MT Plus Apr 2024, Step 1 (32K) Jun 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.
