Noometry

Model comparison

Mistral Small 3.1 vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct

Mistral Small 3.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.7 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.

Mistral Small 3.1 Mistral AI

31.7

Rank #269 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

30.1

Rank #297 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Mistral Small 3.1 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct in 3 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • Mistral Small 3.1 is cheaper at $0.35 / $0.56 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 Small 3.1Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
ProviderMistral AIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index31.730.1
Released2025-03-172024-09
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K131K
Max output102K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.35$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$0.56$2.80
Results tracked287

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Too close to call

Mistral Small 3.1: 38.3 (#179), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169)

BenchmarkMistral Small 3.1Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
BigCodeBench Instruct—45%
LMArena Coding1309—
BigCodeBench Complete—52.3%

Reasoning Too close to call

Mistral Small 3.1: 19.7 (#254), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266)

BenchmarkMistral Small 3.1Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Chess Puzzles1%0%
Epoch Capabilities Index127.48128.52
LMArena Hard Prompts1278—

Math Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads

Mistral Small 3.1: 14.7 (#301), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296)

BenchmarkMistral Small 3.1Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20253.9%7.4%
Omni-MATH24.8%—
LMArena Math1262—
MATH Level 5—56.1%

Knowledge Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads

Mistral Small 3.1: 22.6 (#271), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266)

BenchmarkMistral Small 3.1Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
GPQA Diamond41.9%46.1%
MMLU-Pro61%—
GPQA (HELM)39.2%—
LMArena Expert1257—

Multimodal Not comparable

Mistral Small 3.1: 33.2 (#99), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkMistral Small 3.1Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Vision1136—

Multilingual Not comparable

Mistral Small 3.1: 41.2 (#209), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkMistral Small 3.1Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1255—
LMArena Chinese1253—
LMArena French1273—
LMArena German1266—
LMArena Japanese1208—
LMArena Korean1206—
LMArena Russian1263—
LMArena Spanish1283—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Mistral Small 3.1: 63.6 (#230), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkMistral Small 3.1Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
IFEval75%—
LMArena Instruction Following1264—

Long Context Not comparable

Mistral Small 3.1: 39.5 (#178), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkMistral Small 3.1Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query1299—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Mistral Small 3.1: 37.0 (#259), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

BenchmarkMistral Small 3.1Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
LMArena Text1277—
LMArena Creative Writing1253—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing761—
WildBench78.8%—
LMArena Multi-Turn1270—

Frequently asked questions

Is Mistral Small 3.1 better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

Mistral Small 3.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.7 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Mistral Small 3.1 or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

Mistral Small 3.1 is cheaper. It lists at $0.35 per million input tokens and $0.56 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 32B Instruct lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

Is Mistral Small 3.1 or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (38.3 vs 38.7); test both on your own repository before choosing.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct does, with 131K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Mistral Small 3.1 and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mistral Small 3.1 has 28 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.

Related comparisons

Go deeper