Qwen2.5 32B Instruct vs Mistral Nemo vs Mistral Large 2.1
Mistral Nemo comes out ahead, 48 to 43 and 38 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Alibaba (Qwen)
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
43/100- ECI128.5
- Price$0.70 / $2.80
- Context131K
- Our pick
Mistral AI
Mistral Nemo
48/100- ECI118.7
- Price$0.15 / $0.15
- Context128K
Mistral AI
Mistral Large 2.1
38/100- ECI128.5
- Price$2.00 / $6.00
- Context131K
Mistral Nemo is our pick
Mistral Nemo is the better all-round choice, scoring 48/100 against Qwen2.5 32B Instruct (43) and Mistral Large 2.1 (38). It leads on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityQwen2.5 32B Instruct and Mistral Large 2.1Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen2.5 32B Instruct 128.5 · Mistral Large 2.1 128.5 · Mistral Nemo 118.7
- Lowest priceMistral NemoMistral Nemo $0.15 · Qwen2.5 32B Instruct $1.23 · Mistral Large 2.1 $3.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen2.5 32B Instruct and Mistral Large 2.1Qwen2.5 32B Instruct 131,072 · Mistral Large 2.1 131,072 · Mistral Nemo 128,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsQwen2.5 32B Instruct: Text · Mistral Nemo: Text · Mistral Large 2.1: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Mistral Nemo | Mistral Large 2.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 51 | 39 | 51 |
| Price | 25% | 46 | 89 | 27 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 25 | 25 | 25 |
| Context window | 10% | 24 | 24 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 43/100 | 48/100 | 38/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 128.5 (best) | 118.7 | 128.5 (best) |
| ECI rank | #131 of 148 | #140 of 148 | #130 of 148 (best) |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 46.1% | 29.9% | 51.3% (best) |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 7.4% | — | 7.8% (best) |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.70 | $0.15 (best) | $2.00 |
| Output | $2.80 | $0.15 (best) | $6.00 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.23 | $0.15 (best) | $3.00 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Alibaba API | Official Mistral API | Official Mistral API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens (best) | 128,000 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 128,000 tokens (best) | 16,384 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 | qwen2-5-32b-instruct | mistral-nemo | mistral-large-2411 |
| API providers | 1 | 5 (best) | 2 |
| Released | Sep 17, 2024 | Jul 1, 2024 | Nov 18, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2024 | Jul 2024 | Nov 2024 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct$12.60
Mistral Nemo$1.80
Mistral Large 2.1$32.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen2.5 32B Instruct, Mistral Nemo or Mistral Large 2.1?
Mistral Nemo is the better all-round choice, scoring 48/100 against Qwen2.5 32B Instruct (43) and Mistral Large 2.1 (38). It leads on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, Qwen2.5 32B Instruct, Mistral Nemo or Mistral Large 2.1?
Mistral Nemo is cheaper at $0.15 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (official Mistral API price). Qwen2.5 32B Instruct costs $0.70 input / $2.80 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 $0.15 per million tokens for Mistral Nemo versus $1.23 for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct (8.2× as much) and $3.00 for Mistral Large 2.1 (20× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen2.5 32B Instruct 128.5 (#131 of 148), Mistral Large 2.1 128.5 (#130 of 148) and Mistral Nemo 118.7 (#140 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (123.5–130.0 vs 123.8–130.8), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Mistral Large 2.1 51.3%, Qwen2.5 32B Instruct 46.1%, Mistral Nemo 29.9%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct, Mistral Nemo and Mistral Large 2.1 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Qwen2.5 32B 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 32B Instruct and Mistral Large 2.1 have the largest context windows (131,072 and 131,072 tokens), against 128,000 for Mistral Nemo. Maximum output per response: Qwen2.5 32B Instruct up to 8,192, Mistral Nemo up to 128,000, Mistral Large 2.1 up to 16,384 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct accepts text; Mistral Nemo accepts text; Mistral Large 2.1 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?
Mistral Large 2.1 is the newest, released Nov 18, 2024. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct came out Sep 17, 2024; Mistral Nemo came out Jul 1, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen2.5 32B Instruct Apr 2024, Mistral Nemo Jul 2024, Mistral Large 2.1 Nov 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.