# Mistral Nemo vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct

> Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.7 to 25.9 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.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mistral-nemo-vs-qwen2-5-32b-instruct
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 3

## 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.

## Snapshot

| | Mistral Nemo | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Mistral AI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 25.9 | 29.7 |
| Rank | 332 | 291 |
| Context | 128K | 131K |
| Input $/M | $0.15 | $0.70 |
| Output $/M | $0.15 | $2.80 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Mistral Nemo: —
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.1 (#165)

| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 45% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.3% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Mistral Nemo: 23.3 (#118)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 27.6% | — |
| BALROG | 17.6% | — |

## Reasoning

- Mistral Nemo: 19.9 (#230)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 18.5 (#262)

| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 118.63 | 128.52 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| DTBench | 48.6% | — |
| PIQA | 83.5% | — |

## Math

- Mistral Nemo: 23.5 (#263)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 15.3 (#289)

| 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

- Mistral Nemo: 12.3 (#293)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#259)

| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 29.9% | 46.1% |
| BoolQ | 82.5% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Mistral Nemo: 28.6 (#291)
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —

| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 881 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Mistral Nemo better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?

Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.7 to 25.9 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.