Model Comparison

Pixtral-12B vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is 1.7x cheaper per token.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

3 benchmarks

Pixtral-12B outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is better at 3 benchmarks (HumanEval, MATH, MMLU).

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Mon May 25 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct costs less

For input processing, Pixtral-12B ($0.15/1M tokens) is 1.7x more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct ($0.09/1M tokens).

For output processing, Pixtral-12B ($0.15/1M tokens) is 1.7x more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct ($0.09/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Pixtral-12B is more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers

Mon May 25 2026 • llm-stats.com

Pixtral-12B

Input tokens$0.15

Output tokens$0.15

Best providerMistral

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Input tokens$0.09

Output tokens$0.09

Best providerLambda

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

19.6B diff

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct has 19.6B more parameters than Pixtral-12B, making it 158.1% larger.

Pixtral-12B

12.4Bparameters

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

32.0Bparameters

12.4B

Pixtral-12B

32.0B

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Both models have the same input context window of 128,000 tokens. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct can generate longer responses up to 128,000 tokens, while Pixtral-12B is limited to 8,192 tokens.

Pixtral-12B

Input128,000 tokens

Output8,192 tokens

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Input128,000 tokens

Output128,000 tokens

Mon May 25 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Pixtral-12B supports multimodal inputs, whereas Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct does not.

Pixtral-12B can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Pixtral-12B

Text

Images

Audio

Video

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Text

Images

Audio

Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Both models are licensed under Apache 2.0.

Both models share the same licensing terms, providing consistent usage rights.

Pixtral-12B

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Pixtral-12B was released on 2024-09-17, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct was released on 2024-09-19.

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is 0 month newer than Pixtral-12B.

Pixtral-12B

Sep 17, 2024

1.7 years ago

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Sep 19, 2024

1.7 years ago

2d newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

Pixtral-12B is available from Mistral AI. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is available from Lambda, DeepInfra, Hyperbolic, Fireworks.

Pixtral-12B

Mistral

Input Price:Input: $0.15/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.15/1M

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Lambda

Input Price:Input: $0.09/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.09/1M

Deepinfra

Input Price:Input: $0.18/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.18/1M

Hyperbolic

Input Price:Input: $0.20/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.20/1M

Fireworks

Input Price:Input: $0.89/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.89/1M

* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Pixtral-12B

View details

Mistral AI

Supports multimodal inputs

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

View details

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Less expensive input tokens

Less expensive output tokens

Higher HumanEval score (92.7% vs 72.0%)

Higher MATH score (57.2% vs 48.1%)

Higher MMLU score (75.1% vs 69.2%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature	Pixtral-12B	Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

FAQ

Common questions about Pixtral-12B vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.

Which is better, Pixtral-12B or Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Pixtral-12B is made by Mistral AI and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.

How does Pixtral-12B compare to Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct in benchmarks?

Pixtral-12B scores DocVQA: 90.7%, ChartQA: 81.8%, VQAv2: 78.6%, MT-Bench: 76.8%, HumanEval: 72.0%. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct scores HumanEval: 92.7%, GSM8k: 91.1%, MBPP: 90.2%, HellaSwag: 83.0%, Winogrande: 80.8%.

Is Pixtral-12B cheaper than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is 1.7x cheaper for input tokens. Pixtral-12B costs $0.15/M input and $0.15/M output via mistral. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct costs $0.09/M input and $0.09/M output via lambda.

What are the context window sizes for Pixtral-12B and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?

Pixtral-12B supports 128K tokens and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct supports 128K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Pixtral-12B and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?

Key differences include input pricing ($0.15 vs $0.09/M), multimodal support (yes vs no). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Pixtral-12B and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?

Pixtral-12B is developed by Mistral AI and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.