Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct vs Sonar vs Codestral
Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct comes out ahead, 51 to 48 and 30 on our weighted score, though Codestral is 14% cheaper per token.
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct
51/100- ECI—
- Price$0.35 / $1.05
- Context131K
PerplexitySonar
30/100- ECI—
- Price$1.00 / $1.00
- Context128K
Mistral AICodestral
48/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $0.90
- Context256K
Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct is our pick
Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct is the better all-round choice, scoring 51/100 against Codestral (48) and Sonar (30). It leads on inputs & features. Codestral wins on price and 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 priceCodestralCodestral $0.45 · Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct $0.525 · Sonar $1.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextCodestralCodestral 256,000 · Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct 131,072 · Sonar 128,000 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen2.5-VL 7B InstructQwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct: Text, Images · Sonar: Text · Codestral: Text
- Self-hostingQwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct and CodestralPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct | Sonar | Codestral |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 63 | 50 | 66 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 50 | 0 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 24 | 36 |
| Overall | 100% | 51/100 | 30/100 | 48/100 |
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 | Qwen2.5-VL 7B InstructAlibaba (Qwen) | SonarPerplexity | CodestralMistral AI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.35 | $1.00 | $0.30 (best) |
| Output | $1.05 | $1.00 | $0.90 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — | $0.03 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.525 | $1.00 | $0.45 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Alibaba API | Official Perplexity API | Official Mistral API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 128,000 tokens | 256,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens (best) | 4,096 tokens | 4,096 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | No | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | qwen2-5-vl-7b-instruct | sonar | codestral-latest |
| API providers | 1 | 6 (best) | 3 |
| Released | Sep 2024 | Jan 1, 2024 | May 29, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2024 | Sep 1, 2025 | Oct 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-VL 7B Instruct$5.60
- Sonar$12.00
- Codestral$4.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct, Sonar or Codestral?
Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct is the better all-round choice, scoring 51/100 against Codestral (48) and Sonar (30). It leads on inputs & features. Codestral wins on price and 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-VL 7B Instruct, Sonar or Codestral?
Codestral is cheaper at $0.30 input / $0.90 output per million tokens (official Mistral API price). Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct costs $0.35 input / $1.05 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price); Sonar costs $1.00 input / $1.00 output per million tokens (official Perplexity API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.45 per million tokens for Codestral versus $0.525 for Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct (1.2× as much) and $1.00 for Sonar (2.2× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct has not been scored yet, Sonar has not been scored yet and Codestral has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct, Sonar and Codestral yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Sonar does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Codestral has the largest context window at 256,000 tokens, against 131,072 for Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct and 128,000 for Sonar. Maximum output per response: Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct up to 8,192, Sonar up to 4,096, Codestral up to 4,096 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct accepts text and images; Sonar accepts text; Codestral accepts text. Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct and Codestral publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Sonar is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct is the newest, released Sep 2024. Codestral came out May 29, 2024; Sonar came out Jan 1, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen2.5-VL 7B Instruct Apr 2024, Sonar Sep 1, 2025, Codestral Oct 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.
