Model comparison
Mistral Medium 3.1 vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Mistral Medium 3.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.5 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs 2.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Mistral Medium 3.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Mistral AI
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Mistral Medium 3.1 leads 55.6 to 48.8.
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is cheaper at $0.17 / $0.70 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $2 for Mistral Medium 3.1.
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Mistral AI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.5 | 28.6 |
| Released | — | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 131K | 131K |
| Max output | 105K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.40 | $0.17 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2 | $0.70 |
| Results tracked | 3 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Mistral Medium 3.1: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 35.9 (#204)
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 37.6% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 46.1% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Mistral Medium 3.1: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.5 (#117)
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | — | 7.8% |
Reasoning Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads
Mistral Medium 3.1: 10.1 (#336), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.3 (#317)
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 6.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| Thematic Generalization | 20.3% | — |
| DTBench | — | 47.7% |
| LMCA | — | 6.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 118.44 |
Math Not comparable
Mistral Medium 3.1: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 11.8 (#300)
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 2.5% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 29.4% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Mistral Medium 3.1: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#281)
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 35.5% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 53.9% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 34.1% |
| MMLU | — | 72.9% |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Mistral Medium 3.1: —, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | — | 74.1% |
Writing & Preference Mistral Medium 3.1 leads
Mistral Medium 3.1: 55.6 (#140), Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#194)
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1476 | — |
| WildBench | — | 73.1% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mistral Medium 3.1 better than Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?
Mistral Medium 3.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.5 to 28.6 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs 2.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Mistral Medium 3.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Mistral Medium 3.1 or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.17 per million input tokens and $0.70 per million output tokens; Mistral Medium 3.1 lists at $0.40 and $2.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 131K tokens.
How many benchmarks do Mistral Medium 3.1 and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mistral Medium 3.1 has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15.