# Mistral Medium 3.1 vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct

> Mistral Medium 3.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.9 to 29.0 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.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mistral-medium-3-1-vs-qwen2-5-7b-instruct
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Mistral Medium 3.1 leads 55.5 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.

## Snapshot

| | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Mistral AI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.9 | 29.0 |
| Rank | 266 | 320 |
| Context | 131K | 131K |
| Input $/M | $0.40 | $0.17 |
| Output $/M | $2 | $0.70 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Mistral Medium 3.1: —
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 36.5 (#208)

| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 37.6% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 46.1% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Mistral Medium 3.1: —
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.8 (#124)

| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | — | 7.8% |

## Reasoning

- Mistral Medium 3.1: 10.6 (#341)
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.8 (#322)

| 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 | — | 118.51 |

## Math

- Mistral Medium 3.1: —
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 12.6 (#306)

| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 2.5% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 29.4% |

## Knowledge

- Mistral Medium 3.1: —
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#286)

| 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

- Mistral Medium 3.1: —
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.2 (#231)

| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | — | 74.1% |

## Writing & Preference

- Mistral Medium 3.1: 55.5 (#145)
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#195)

| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1476 | — |
| WildBench | — | 73.1% |

## FAQ

### Is Mistral Medium 3.1 better than Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

Mistral Medium 3.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.9 to 29.0 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.