solar-mini vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct
solar-mini comes out ahead, 50 to 39 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
Upstagesolar-mini
50/100- ECI—
- Price$0.15 / $0.15
- Context33K
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct
39/100- ECI—
- Price$0.66 / $1.00
- Context131K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
solar-mini is our pick
solar-mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 50/100 against Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct (39). It leads on price. 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 pricesolar-minisolar-mini $0.15 · 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 · solar-mini 32,768 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputssolar-mini: Text · Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct: Text
- Self-hostingQwen2.5-Coder-32B-InstructPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | solar-mini | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 85 | 54 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 0 | 25 |
| Overall | 100% | 50/100 | 39/100 |
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 | solar-miniUpstage | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-InstructAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.15 (best) | $0.66 |
| Output | $0.15 (best) | $1.00 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.15 (best) | $0.745 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Upstage API | Median of 7 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 32,768 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 4,096 tokens | 8,192 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | solar-mini | — |
| API providers | 1 | 7 (best) |
| Released | Jun 12, 2024 | Nov 12, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Sep 2024 | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- solar-mini$1.80
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct$8.60
Which should you choose?
Which is better: solar-mini or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct?
solar-mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 50/100 against Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct (39). It leads on price. 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, solar-mini or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct?
solar-mini is cheaper at $0.15 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (official Upstage API price). 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 $0.15 per million tokens for solar-mini versus $0.745 for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct (5× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. solar-mini has not been scored yet and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for solar-mini and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct 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 solar-mini. Maximum output per response: solar-mini up to 4,096, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
solar-mini accepts text; Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; solar-mini is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct is the newest, released Nov 12, 2024. solar-mini came out Jun 12, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: solar-mini Sep 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.
Related comparisons
- Add Hermes 2 Pro Llama 3 8BThree-way comparison
- solar-mini vs Hermes 2 Pro Llama 3 8BNous Research
- solar-mini vs Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-InstructMeta
- solar-mini vs Command RCohere
- solar-mini vs Gemini 2.0 Flash-LiteGoogle
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct vs Aya Expanse 32BCohere
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct vs Hermes 3 70B InstructNous Research
