ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct vs Mistral Nemo vs Mistral Large 2.1

Mistral Nemo comes out ahead, 48 to 40 and 38 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen2.5 72B Instruct

    Released Sep 19, 2024

    40/100
    • ECI129.0
    • Price$1.40 / $5.60
    • Context131K
  2. Our pick

    Mistral AI

    Mistral Nemo

    Released Jul 1, 2024

    48/100
    • ECI118.7
    • Price$0.15 / $0.15
    • Context128K
  3. Mistral AI

    Mistral Large 2.1

    Released Nov 18, 2024

    38/100
    • ECI128.5
    • Price$2.00 / $6.00
    • Context131K
01 — Verdict

Mistral Nemo is our pick

Mistral Nemo is the better all-round choice, scoring 48/100 against Qwen2.5 72B Instruct (40) 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 72B InstructCapabilities Index (ECI): Qwen2.5 72B Instruct 129.0 · Mistral Large 2.1 128.5 · Mistral Nemo 118.7
  • Lowest priceMistral NemoMistral Nemo $0.15 · Qwen2.5 72B Instruct $2.45 · Mistral Large 2.1 $3.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextQwen2.5 72B Instruct and Mistral Large 2.1Qwen2.5 72B Instruct 131,072 · Mistral Large 2.1 131,072 · Mistral Nemo 128,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsSame inputsQwen2.5 72B 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
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen2.5 72B InstructMistral NemoMistral Large 2.1
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%523951
Price25%318927
Inputs & features15%252525
Context window10%242424
Overall100%40/10048/10038/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct vs Mistral Nemo vs Mistral Large 2.1 specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen2.5 72B InstructAlibaba (Qwen)Mistral NemoMistral AIMistral Large 2.1Mistral AI
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)129.0 (best)118.7128.5
ECI rank#128 of 148 (best)#140 of 148#130 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions49.2%29.9%51.3% (best)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics8.1% (best)—7.8%
Price per million tokens
Input$1.40$0.15 (best)$2.00
Output$5.60$0.15 (best)$6.00
Cached input———
Blended (3:1)$2.45$0.15 (best)$3.00
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Alibaba APIOfficial Mistral APIOfficial Mistral API
Limits
Context window131,072 tokens (best)128,000 tokens131,072 tokens (best)
Max output8,192 tokens128,000 tokens (best)16,384 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesNoNoNo
PDFsNoNoNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoNoNoNo
ReasoningNoNoNo
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputNoNoNo
Availability
WeightsOpenOpenOpen
API model IDqwen2-5-72b-instructmistral-nemomistral-large-2411
API providers15 (best)2
ReleasedSep 19, 2024Jul 1, 2024Nov 18, 2024
Knowledge cutoffApr 2024Jul 2024Nov 2024
03 — Cost

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 72B Instruct$25.20
  • Mistral Nemo$1.80
  • Mistral Large 2.1$32.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen2.5 72B Instruct, Mistral Nemo or Mistral Large 2.1?

Mistral Nemo is the better all-round choice, scoring 48/100 against Qwen2.5 72B Instruct (40) 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 72B 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 72B Instruct costs $1.40 input / $5.60 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 $2.45 for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct (16× as much) and $3.00 for Mistral Large 2.1 (20× 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 Large 2.1 128.5 (#130 of 148) and Mistral Nemo 118.7 (#140 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (123.8–130.7 vs 123.8–130.8), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Mistral Large 2.1 51.3%, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct 49.2%, Mistral Nemo 29.9%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct, Mistral Nemo and Mistral Large 2.1 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 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 72B 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 72B 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 72B Instruct came out Sep 19, 2024; Mistral Nemo came out Jul 1, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen2.5 72B 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.