ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct vs Saba

Saba comes out ahead, 46 to 39 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct

    Released Nov 12, 2024

    39/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.66 / $1.00
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct
  2. Our pick

    Mistral AI

    Saba

    Released Feb 17, 2025

    46/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.20 / $0.60
    • Context33K
    Full specs Remove Saba

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Saba is our pick

Saba is the better all-round choice, scoring 46/100 against Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct (39). It leads on price and inputs & features. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct wins on context window. 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 priceSabaSaba $0.30 · Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct $0.745 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextQwen2.5-Coder-32B-InstructQwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct 131,072 · Saba 32,768 tokens
  • Widest inputsSabaQwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct: Text · Saba: Text, PDFs
  • Self-hostingQwen2.5-Coder-32B-InstructPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen2.5-Coder-32B-InstructSaba
Price50%5472
Inputs & features30%2535
Context window20%250
Overall100%39/10046/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct vs Saba specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen2.5-Coder-32B-InstructAlibaba (Qwen)SabaMistral AI
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)——
ECI rank——
Price per million tokens
Input$0.66$0.20 (best)
Output$1.00$0.60 (best)
Cached input——
Blended (3:1)$0.745$0.30 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 7 providersMedian of 4 providers
Limits
Context window131,072 tokens (best)32,768 tokens
Max output8,192 tokens26,214 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoNo
PDFsNoYes
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningNoNo
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoNo
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietary
API model ID——
API providers7 (best)4
ReleasedNov 12, 2024Feb 17, 2025
Knowledge cutoff—Sep 30, 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-Coder-32B-Instruct$8.60
  • Saba$3.20
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct or Saba?

Saba is the better all-round choice, scoring 46/100 against Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct (39). It leads on price and inputs & features. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct wins on context window. 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, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct or Saba?

Saba is cheaper at $0.20 input / $0.60 output per million tokens (median across 4 API providers). Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct costs $0.66 input / $1.00 output per million tokens (median across 7 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.30 per million tokens for Saba versus $0.745 for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct (2.5× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct has not been scored yet and Saba has not been scored yet.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct and Saba yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct has the largest context window at 131,072 tokens, against 32,768 for Saba. Maximum output per response: Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct up to 8,192, Saba up to 26,214 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct accepts text; Saba accepts text and PDFs. Saba handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Saba is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Saba is the newest, released Feb 17, 2025. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct came out Nov 12, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Saba Sep 30, 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 Nov 2, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons