Qwen2.5 7B Instruct vs Fugu Ultra v2
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs 150.0x less per output token than Fugu Ultra v2 ($0.20 vs $30.00 per million). Updated October 23, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.20
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $30.00
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct or Fugu Ultra v2: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Qwen2.5 7B Instruct for output tokens 150.0x cheaper ($0.20 vs $30.00 per million).
No benchmark has tested both yet. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has results on Epoch Capabilities Index, BALROG and GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run); Fugu Ultra v2 has none yet. 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
Fugu Ultra v2
Fugu Ultra v2 takes 1M tokens against 33K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct $0.0002, Fugu Ultra v2 $0.020 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct not benchmarked, Fugu Ultra v2 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 Fugu Ultra v2 $30.00 per million output tokens, 150.0x apart.
- Context window
- Qwen2.5 7B Instruct takes 33K tokens, Fugu Ultra v2 1M.
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.
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Fugu Ultra v2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 118.5 | Not measured | Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Fugu Ultra v2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BALROG | 7.8% | Not measured | Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 41 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Fugu Ultra v2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 35.5% | Not measured | Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Fugu Ultra v2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | 2.5% | Not measured | Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 7B Instruct | Fugu Ultra v2 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 72.9% | Not measured | Only Qwen2.5 7B Instruct measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
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 | Sakana Fugu Ultra v2 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Qwen | Sakana |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | October 16, 2024 | September 11, 2026 |
| Context window | 33K | 1M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.10 | $5.00 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.20 | $30.00 |
| 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 Qwen2.5 7B Instruct better than Fugu Ultra v2 for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Qwen2.5 7B Instruct for output tokens 150.0x cheaper ($0.20 vs $30.00 per million).
Which is cheaper, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct or Fugu Ultra v2?
Qwen2.5 7B Instruct costs $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Fugu Ultra v2 costs $5.00 and $30.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct or Fugu Ultra v2?
Fugu Ultra v2, with 1M tokens against 33K.
Has any benchmark tested both Qwen2.5 7B Instruct and Fugu Ultra v2?
No benchmark has tested both yet. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct has results on Epoch Capabilities Index, BALROG and GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run); Fugu Ultra v2 has none yet. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 23, 2026.