Moondream 3.1 vs Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct

Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct costs 2.5x less per output token than Moondream 3.1 ($1.00 vs $2.50 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.

Replace Moondream 3.1 Replace Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct

M Moondream 3.1Moondream

Coding: No data
Overall: No data
Output $/M: $2.50

Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructQwen

Coding: No data
Overall: No data
Output $/M: $1.00

vs $2.50 vs $1.00 per 1M output tokens. Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct is 2.5x cheaper.

Moondream 3.1 or Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Model AMoondream 3.1MoondreamNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task Model BQwen2.5 VL 72B InstructQwenNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task

No benchmark has tested both yet. Moondream 3.1 has none yet; Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct on OSWorld, Kagi LLM Benchmark and GeoBench. Compare them on price and context instead.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct takes 128K tokens against 32K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
Moondream 3.1 $0.0015, Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct $0.0013 per turn.
List prices

At a glance

Coding index: Moondream 3.1 not benchmarked, Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category: None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
Widest single gap: None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
Output price: Moondream 3.1 $2.50 against Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct $1.00 per million output tokens, 2.5x apart.
Context window: Moondream 3.1 takes 32K tokens, Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct 128K.

Benchmark by benchmark

Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.

Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured

Agentic work benchmarks for Moondream 3.1 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
Benchmark	Moondream 3.1	Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct	Leader
OSWorld	Not measured	5.0%	Only Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here

ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured

Reasoning benchmarks for Moondream 3.1 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
Benchmark	Moondream 3.1	Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct	Leader
Kagi LLM Benchmark	Not measured	36.0%	Only Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here

KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured

Knowledge benchmarks for Moondream 3.1 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
Benchmark	Moondream 3.1	Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct	Leader
GeoBench	Not measured	62.0%	Only Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here

GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards measured

General benchmarks for Moondream 3.1 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
Benchmark	Moondream 3.1	Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct	Leader
LMArena Vision	Not measured	1107	Only Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Vision: English	Not measured	1115	Only Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Vision: Chinese	Not measured	1107	Only Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 43 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Moondream 3.1$0.0015Fits in one request

Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct$0.0013Fits in one request

Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Moondream 3.1$0.022Exceeds the context window

Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct$0.043Fits in one request

Moondream 3.1 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Moondream 3.1$0.085Exceeds the context window

Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct$0.170Exceeds the context window

Moondream 3.1 costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Moondream 3.1 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
Specification	Moondream 3.1	Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
Maker	Moondream	Qwen
Weights	Open weights	Open weights
Released	October 15, 2026	February 1, 2025
Context window	32K	128K
Input $/Mtok	$0.30	$0.80
Output $/Mtok	$2.50	$1.00
Coding index	Not benchmarked	Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it	0	0
Cost per solved task	Not computable	Not computable
Source	OpenRouter listing	OpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Moondream 3.1 better than Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Which is cheaper, Moondream 3.1 or Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct?

Moondream 3.1 costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.50 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct costs $0.80 and $1.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Moondream 3.1 or Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct?

Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct, with 128K tokens against 32K.

Has any benchmark tested both Moondream 3.1 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct?

No benchmark has tested both yet. Moondream 3.1 has none yet; Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct on OSWorld, Kagi LLM Benchmark and GeoBench. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 22, 2026.