# Mistral Nemo vs Qwen2.5 7B Instruct

> Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 28.6 to 25.9 on the Noometry Index. Mistral Nemo costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen2.5 7B Instruct's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mistral-nemo-vs-qwen2-5-7b-instruct
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 4

## Summary

- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Mistral Nemo scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct in 3 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen2.5 7B Instruct leads 48.8 to 28.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is BALROG: 17.6% for Mistral Nemo and 7.8% for Qwen2.5 7B Instruct.
- Mistral Nemo is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.17 / $0.70 for Qwen2.5 7B Instruct.
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.

## Snapshot

| | Mistral Nemo | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Mistral AI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 25.9 | 28.6 |
| Rank | 332 | 314 |
| Context | 128K | 131K |
| Input $/M | $0.15 | $0.17 |
| Output $/M | $0.15 | $0.70 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Mistral Nemo: —
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 35.9 (#204)

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

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Mistral Nemo: 23.3 (#118)
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 23.5 (#117)

| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | 17.6% | 7.8% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 27.6% | — |

## Reasoning

- Mistral Nemo: 19.9 (#230)
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 14.3 (#317)

| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 48.6% | 47.7% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 118.63 | 118.44 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMCA | — | 6.4% |
| PIQA | 83.5% | — |

## Math

- Mistral Nemo: 23.5 (#263)
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 11.8 (#300)

| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 2.5% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 29.4% |
| MATH Level 5 | 10.8% | — |
| GSM8K | 84.2% | — |

## Knowledge

- Mistral Nemo: 12.3 (#293)
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 17.0 (#281)

| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 29.9% | 35.5% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 53.9% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 34.1% |
| BoolQ | 82.5% | — |
| MMLU | — | 72.9% |

## Instruction Following

- Mistral Nemo: —
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 63.4 (#226)

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

## Writing & Preference

- Mistral Nemo: 28.6 (#291)
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: 48.8 (#194)

| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 881 | — |
| WildBench | — | 73.1% |

## FAQ

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

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 28.6 to 25.9 on the Noometry Index. Mistral Nemo costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen2.5 7B Instruct's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Mistral Nemo or Qwen2.5 7B Instruct?

Mistral Nemo is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 7B Instruct lists at $0.17 and $0.70.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct does, with 131K tokens against 128K.

### How many benchmarks do Mistral Nemo and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mistral Nemo has 10 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has 15.