Model Comparison
Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B
vs. Qwen3 0.6B (Non-reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Al Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B 16 metric wins Strongest on: Output price, Reasoning, Intelligence
Best Value
Qwen3 0.6B (Non-reasoning)
100.0 value score
15.5 reasoning / $0.19/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3 0.6B (Non-reasoning)
$0.11/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B
28.4 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B
11.9 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Qwen3 0.6B (Non-reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3 0.6B (Non-reasoning) is 3.3x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B.
Reasoning gap
Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B leads Qwen3 0.6B (Non-reasoning) by 12.9 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B leads Qwen3 0.6B (Non-reasoning) by 10.5 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B wins 16 measurable categories, including Output price, Reasoning, Intelligence, Coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3 0.6B (Non-reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick Al Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B | Al Qwen3 0.6B (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.36/1M | $0.11/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.40/1M | $0.42/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.37/1M | $0.19/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Sep 19, 2024 | Apr 28, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | — |
| TTFT | — | — |
| Latency | — | — |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 92.9 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 28.4 | 15.5 |
| Intelligence | 15.6 | 5.7 |
| Coding | 11.9 | 1.4 |
| Math | 14.0 | 10.3 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 49.1% | 23.1% |
| MMLU Pro | 72.0% | 23.1% |
| HLE | 4.2% | 5.2% |
| LiveCodeBench | 27.6% | 7.3% |
| MATH 500 | 85.8% | 52.1% |
| AIME 2025 | 14.0% | 10.3% |
| AIME (Original) | 16.0% | 1.7% |
| SciCode | 26.7% | 4.1% |
| LCR | 20.3% | 0.0% |
| IFBench | 36.9% | 21.9% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 34.5% | 14.6% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 4.5% | 0.0% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3 0.6B (Non-reasoning) offers the best value at $0.11/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B has the strongest reasoning profile with a 28.4 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B reaches a 11.9 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Qwen3 0.6B (Non-reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
