Qwen-MT Turbo vs Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B vs Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct
Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct comes out ahead, 58 to 49 and 40 on our weighted score, though Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B is 2.8× cheaper per token.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen-MT Turbo
40/100- ECI—
- Price$0.16 / $0.49
- Context16K
- Alibaba (Qwen)
Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B
49/100- ECI88.2
- Price$0.10 / $0.10
- Context33K
- Our pick
MetaLlama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct
58/100- ECI—
- Price$0.197 / $0.51
- Context128K
Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct is our pick
Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct is the better all-round choice, scoring 58/100 against Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B (49) and Qwen-MT Turbo (40). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B wins on price. 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 Turbo $0.242 · Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct $0.275 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextLlama-3.2-11B-Vision-InstructLlama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct 128,000 · Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B 32,768 · Qwen-MT Turbo 16,384 tokens
- Widest inputsLlama-3.2-11B-Vision-InstructQwen-MT Turbo: Text · Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B: Text · Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct: Text, Images
- Self-hostingQwen2.5-Coder-0.5B and Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-InstructPublishes downloadable weights (Apache 2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Qwen-MT Turbo | Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B | Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 79 | 97 | 76 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 0 | 0 | 50 |
| Context window | 20% | 0 | 0 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 40/100 | 49/100 | 58/100 |
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 TurboAlibaba (Qwen) | Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5BAlibaba (Qwen) | Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-InstructMeta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | 88.2 | — |
| ECI rank | — | #148 of 148 | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.16 | $0.10 (best) | $0.197 |
| Output | $0.49 | $0.10 (best) | $0.51 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.242 | $0.10 (best) | $0.275 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Alibaba API | Median of 1 providers | Median of 2 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 16,384 tokens | 32,768 tokens | 128,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens (best) | 4,096 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | Yes |
| 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 | Open |
| API model ID | qwen-mt-turbo | — | — |
| API providers | 1 | 1 | 2 (best) |
| Released | Jan 2025 | Nov 12, 2024 | Sep 25, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2024 | — | Dec 2023 |
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 Turbo$2.58
- Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B$1.20
- Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct$2.99
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen-MT Turbo, Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B or Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct?
Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct is the better all-round choice, scoring 58/100 against Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B (49) and Qwen-MT Turbo (40). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B wins on price. 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 Turbo, Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B or Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct?
Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.10 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Qwen-MT Turbo costs $0.16 input / $0.49 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price); Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct costs $0.197 input / $0.51 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers). 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 $0.242 for Qwen-MT Turbo (2.4× as much) and $0.275 for Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct (2.8× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Qwen-MT Turbo has not been scored yet, Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B has an ECI of 88.2 and Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen-MT Turbo, Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B and Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Qwen-MT Turbo and Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct has the largest context window at 128,000 tokens, against 32,768 for Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B and 16,384 for Qwen-MT Turbo. Maximum output per response: Qwen-MT Turbo up to 8,192, Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B up to 8,192, Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct up to 4,096 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen-MT Turbo accepts text; Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B accepts text; Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct accepts text and images. Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B and Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct publishes its weights (Apache 2.0) and can be self-hosted; Qwen-MT Turbo is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen-MT Turbo is the newest, released Jan 2025. Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B came out Nov 12, 2024; Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct came out Sep 25, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen-MT Turbo Apr 2024, Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-Instruct Dec 2023.
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.
