Ember-1 vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
Ember-1 leads the LLM Stats Score 43.1 to 2.0. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is 66.7x cheaper per token.
Fireworks AI · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Ember-1 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 43.1 to 2.0, ranking #51 overall.
On price, Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is roughly 66.7x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Ember-1 also accepts a larger context window (1,040,000 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Ember-1
- overall performance matters — it scores 43.1 and ranks #51 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,040,000 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026
Choose Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
- cost matters — it's about 66.7x cheaper per token
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Individual benchmarks
4 reported for Ember-1 · 15 for Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
Ember-1 and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instructdon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Ember-1 ($3.00/1M tokens) is 33.3x more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct ($0.09/1M tokens).
For output processing, Ember-1 ($15.00/1M tokens) is 166.7x more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct ($0.09/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Ember-1 is more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
Ember-1 has 2748.0B more parameters than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct, making it 8587.5% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Ember-1 accepts 1,040,000 input tokens compared to Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Only Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct specifies output context (128,000 tokens).
License
Usage and distribution terms
Ember-1 is licensed under a proprietary license, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct uses Apache 2.0.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Proprietary
Closed source
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Ember-1 was released on 2026-09-23, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct was released on 2024-09-19.
Ember-1 is 24 months newer than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.
Sep 23, 2026
2 weeks ago
2.0yr newerSep 19, 2024
2.1 years ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
Ember-1 is available from Fireworks. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is available from Lambda, DeepInfra, Hyperbolic, Fireworks.
Ember-1
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Ember-1 and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Ember-1 vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.