Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Qwen
Qwen
vs
Qwen
Qwen

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct vs Qwen3.5 397B A17B

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

Get our weekly newsletter on pricing changes, new releases, and tools.

OpenClaw

Deploy OpenClaw in Under 1 Minute We handle hosting, scaling, and maintenance

Key Takeaways

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct wins:

  • Cheaper output tokens

Qwen3.5 397B A17B wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Larger context window
  • Faster response time
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding
  • Supports vision
Price Advantage
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
Benchmark Advantage
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Context Window
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Speed
Qwen3.5 397B A17B

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructQwen3.5 397B A17B
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyQwen2.5 Coder 32B InstructQwen3.5 397B A17B
LicenseOpen SourceOpen Source
AuthorQwenQwen
ReleasedNov 2024Feb 2026

Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Qwen3.5 397B A17B Modalities

Input
textimagevideo
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct with:

Compare Qwen3.5 397B A17B with:

Frequently Asked Questions

Qwen3.5 397B A17B has cheaper input pricing at $0.39/M tokens. Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct has cheaper output pricing at $0.80/M tokens.
Qwen3.5 397B A17B scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 37.4, compared to Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct's score of N/A.
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct has a 32,768 token context window, while Qwen3.5 397B A17B has a 262,144 token context window.
Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct does not support vision. Qwen3.5 397B A17B supports vision.