Qwen-VL OCR vs Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B
Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B comes out ahead, 49 to 36 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen-VL OCR
36/100- ECI—
- Price$0.72 / $0.72
- Context34K
- Our pickAlibaba (Qwen)
Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B
49/100- ECI88.2
- Price$0.10 / $0.10
- Context33K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B is our pick
Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B is the better all-round choice, scoring 49/100 against Qwen-VL OCR (36). It leads on price. Qwen-VL OCR 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-VL OCR $0.72 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen-VL OCRQwen-VL OCR 34,096 · Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B 32,768 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen-VL OCRQwen-VL OCR: Text, Images · Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B: Text
- Self-hostingQwen2.5-Coder-0.5BPublishes downloadable weights (Apache 2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Qwen-VL OCR | Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 57 | 97 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 0 |
| Context window | 20% | 1 | 0 |
| Overall | 100% | 36/100 | 49/100 |
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-VL OCRAlibaba (Qwen) | Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5BAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | 88.2 |
| ECI rank | — | #148 of 148 |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.72 | $0.10 (best) |
| Output | $0.72 | $0.10 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.72 | $0.10 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Alibaba API | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 34,096 tokens (best) | 32,768 tokens |
| Max output | 4,096 tokens | 8,192 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Tool calling | No | No |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | OpenApache 2.0 |
| API model ID | qwen-vl-ocr | — |
| API providers | 1 | 1 |
| Released | Oct 28, 2024 | Nov 12, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 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.
- Qwen-VL OCR$8.64
- Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B$1.20
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen-VL OCR or Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B?
Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B is the better all-round choice, scoring 49/100 against Qwen-VL OCR (36). It leads on price. Qwen-VL OCR 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-VL OCR or Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B?
Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.10 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Qwen-VL OCR costs $0.72 input / $0.72 output per million tokens (official Alibaba 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 $0.72 for Qwen-VL OCR (7.2× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Qwen-VL OCR has not been scored yet and Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B has an ECI of 88.2.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen-VL OCR and Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Qwen-VL OCR and Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen-VL OCR has the largest context window at 34,096 tokens, against 32,768 for Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B. Maximum output per response: Qwen-VL OCR up to 4,096, Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen-VL OCR accepts text and images; Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B accepts text. Qwen-VL OCR handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B publishes its weights (Apache 2.0) and can be self-hosted; Qwen-VL OCR is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5B is the newest, released Nov 12, 2024. Qwen-VL OCR came out Oct 28, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen-VL OCR 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.
