Qwen2.5 7B Instruct vs Qwen3 Coder Next
Updated October 21, 2026. No benchmark has tested both models yet. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.20
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- 9.2
- Output $/M
- $0.80
Decision reading
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has the edge where output tokens cost 4.0x less.
No benchmark has tested both yet. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has results on Epoch Capabilities Index, BALROG and GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run); Qwen3 Coder Next on AA Coding Index, SciCode and Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run). 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
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Qwen3 Coder Next has a AA Intelligence Index result, 9.2.
Directional only
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Qwen3 Coder Next has a AA Agentic Index result, 0.9.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen3 Coder Next
Qwen3 Coder Next takes 262K tokens against 33K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct $0.0002, Qwen3 Coder Next $0.0005 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct not benchmarked, Qwen3 Coder Next 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
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct $0.20 against Qwen3 Coder Next $0.80 per million output tokens, 4.0x apart.
- Context window
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct takes 33K tokens, Qwen3 Coder Next 262K.
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.
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index4 boards measured
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Qwen3 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 36.2 | Only Qwen3 Coder Next measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 36.2% | Only Qwen3 Coder Next measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 18.2% | Only Qwen3 Coder Next measured |
| WeirdML | Not measured | 34.4% | Only Qwen3 Coder Next measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Qwen3 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | Not measured | 9.2 | Only Qwen3 Coder Next measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 118.5 | Not measured | Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards measured
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Qwen3 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 0.9 | Only Qwen3 Coder Next measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | Not measured | 79.5% | Only Qwen3 Coder Next measured |
| BALROG | 7.8% | Not measured | Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards measured
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Qwen3 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 73.7% | Only Qwen3 Coder Next measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 10.1% | Only Qwen3 Coder Next measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 35.5% | Not measured | Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Qwen3 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | 2.5% | Not measured | Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Qwen3 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 72.9% | Not measured | Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards measured
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Qwen3 Coder Next | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | Not measured | 35.2% | Only Qwen3 Coder Next measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | Not measured | 47.0% | Only Qwen3 Coder Next measured |
| DTBench | 47.7% | Not measured | Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured |
| LMCA | 6.4% | Not measured | Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 42 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
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct 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.
| Specification | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Qwen | Qwen |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | October 16, 2024 | February 4, 2026 |
| Context window | 33K | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.10 | $0.12 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.20 | $0.80 |
| 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 Qwen2.5 7B Instruct better than Qwen3 Coder Next for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has the edge where output tokens cost 4.0x less.
Which is cheaper, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct or Qwen3 Coder Next?
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3 Coder Next costs $0.12 and $0.80. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct or Qwen3 Coder Next?
Qwen3 Coder Next, with 262K tokens against 33K.
Has any benchmark tested both Qwen2.5 7B Instruct and Qwen3 Coder Next?
No benchmark has tested both yet. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has results on Epoch Capabilities Index, BALROG and GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run); Qwen3 Coder Next on AA Coding Index, SciCode and Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run). Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 21, 2026.