Model comparison
Mistral Nemo vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.1 to 26.4 on the Noometry Index. Mistral Nemo costs 8.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen2.5 32B Instruct's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
Mistral AI
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Mistral Nemo scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct in 1 category; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads 24.9 to 12.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is MATH Level 5: 10.8% for Mistral Nemo and 56.1% for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
- Mistral Nemo is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| Mistral Nemo | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Mistral AI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 26.4 | 30.1 |
| Released | 2024-07-01 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 131K |
| Max output | 128K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 10 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Mistral Nemo: —, Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)
| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Mistral Nemo: 23.5 (#125), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 27.6% | — |
| BALROG | 17.6% | — |
Reasoning Mistral Nemo leads
Mistral Nemo: 20.7 (#232), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)
| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 118.68 | 128.52 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| DTBench | 48.6% | — |
| PIQA | 83.5% | — |
Math Mistral Nemo leads
Mistral Nemo: 25.5 (#268), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)
| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| MATH Level 5 | 10.8% | 56.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 7.4% |
| GSM8K | 84.2% | — |
Knowledge Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads
Mistral Nemo: 12.3 (#298), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)
| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 29.9% | 46.1% |
| BoolQ | 82.5% | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Mistral Nemo: 28.5 (#296), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 881 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mistral Nemo better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.1 to 26.4 on the Noometry Index. Mistral Nemo costs 8.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen2.5 32B Instruct's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Mistral Nemo or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Mistral Nemo is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 32B Instruct lists at $0.70 and $2.80.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct does, with 131K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Mistral Nemo and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mistral Nemo has 10 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.