R1 1776 vs Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B: The Ultimate Performance & Pricing Comparison

Deep dive into reasoning, benchmarks, and latency insights.

The Final Verdict in the R1 1776 vs Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B Showdown

After a comprehensive analysis, Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B emerges as the superior choice for users prioritizing raw intelligence and reasoning. However, R1 1776 remains a highly competitive option, especially for scenarios demanding faster response times and cost-efficiency. This detailed R1 1776 vs Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B comparison will break down every critical metric to help you make the best decision.

Explore best-for scenarios•Let the AI Selector recommend next steps

Model Snapshot

Key decision metrics at a glance.

R1 1776

Other

Reasoning: 6
Coding: 6
Multimodal: 1
Long Context: 2
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.015
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: —

Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B

Other

Reasoning: 6
Coding: 6
Multimodal: 1
Long Context: 2
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.000
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: 32.649tokens/sec

Overall Capabilities

The capability radar provides a holistic view of the R1 1776 vs Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B matchup. This chart illustrates each model's strengths and weaknesses at a glance, forming a cornerstone of our R1 1776 vs Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B analysis.

This radar chart visually maps the core capabilities (reasoning, coding, math proxy, multimodal, long context) of `R1 1776` vs `Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B`.

Benchmark Breakdown

For a granular look, this chart directly compares scores across standardized benchmarks. In the critical MMLU Pro test, a key part of the R1 1776 vs Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B debate, R1 1776 scores 60 against Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B's 60. This data-driven approach is essential for any serious R1 1776 vs Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B comparison.

This grouped bar chart provides a side-by-side comparison for each benchmark metric.

Speed & Latency

Speed is a crucial factor in the R1 1776 vs Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B decision for interactive applications. The metrics below highlight the trade-offs you should weigh before shipping to production.

Time to First Token

R1 1776300ms

Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B300ms

Tokens per Second

R1 177631

Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B32.649

Head to the playground to validate these results yourself

The Economics of R1 1776 vs Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B

Power is only one part of the equation. This R1 1776 vs Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B pricing analysis gives you a true sense of value.

Pricing Breakdown

Compare input and output pricing at a glance.

Real-World Cost Scenario

To process 1M input tokens and generate 250k output tokens, R1 1776 would cost $0.018, whereas Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B would cost $0.000. This practical calculation is vital for any developer considering the R1 1776 vs Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B choice.

Review the complete pricing and packaging strategy

Which Model Wins the R1 1776 vs Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B Battle for You?

Choose R1 1776 if...

Cost is a secondary concern to power in your R1 1776 vs Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B decision.

You need the most advanced reasoning capabilities available.

Your use case demands cutting-edge AI performance.

Choose Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B if...

You need a highly responsive model for user-facing applications.

Your budget is a primary consideration in the R1 1776 vs Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B choice.

You are developing at scale where operational costs are critical.

Explore all Best picks Use the AI Selector for a tailored recommendation

Your Questions about the R1 1776 vs Qwen2.5 Coder Instruct 32B Comparison

Review the full evaluation methodology · Read the latest analysis posts

Data source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/