Compare/Ministral 3 14B vs Qwen2.5 Turbo

Ministral 3 14BvsQwen2.5 Turbo

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

Mistral

Ministral 3 14B

Input
$0.2/M
Output
$0.2/M
Speed
85 tok/s
TTFT
0.96s
Alibaba

Qwen2.5 Turbo

Input
$0.05/M
Output
$0.2/M
Speed
108 tok/s
TTFT
2.16s

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Qwen2.5 Turbo
Faster (tok/s)
Qwen2.5 Turbo
Lower Latency
Ministral 3 14B
Benchmarks (2-0)
Ministral 3 14B

Pricing Comparison

MetricMinistral 3 14BQwen2.5 Turbo
Input ($/M tokens)$0.2$0.05
Output ($/M tokens)$0.2$0.2
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
Ministral 3 14B$0.22
Qwen2.5 Turbo$0.07

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
Ministral 3 14B
85 tok/s
Qwen2.5 Turbo
108 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
Ministral 3 14B
0.96s
Qwen2.5 Turbo
2.16s

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. Ministral 3 14B wins the overall benchmark matchup 2–0 across 2 overlapping categories, but raw benchmark score is only one input to the decision.

Pricing. Both models sit in the budget bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.0× the per-million-token cost, Qwen2.5 Turbo is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Qwen2.5 Turbo makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.

Strengths. Ministral 3 14B is strongest on Coding Index (14.4), Intelligence Index (11.2). Qwen2.5 Turbo leads on Intelligence Index (6.0).

Speed. On throughput, Qwen2.5 Turbo generates tokens at 108 tok/s versus 85 tok/s — about 21% faster. On time-to-first-token, Ministral 3 14B responds in 960ms vs 2160ms, which matters most for chat-style UIs.

Provider. Mistral and Alibaba sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Mistral tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Alibaba often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.

Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): Ministral 3 14B costs $9.00 ($108/year); Qwen2.5 Turbo costs $4.50 ($54/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Ministral 3 14B ≈ $1.40/run, Qwen2.5 Turbo ≈ $0.65/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Ministral 3 14B ≈ $60/run, Qwen2.5 Turbo ≈ $30/run. Qwen2.5 Turbo becomes more attractive at higher volume — the absolute per-token pricing difference compounds when you ship at scale.

Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
11.26.0
Coding Index
14.4
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
SciCode
IFBench
TerminalBench
Ministral 3 14B2 wins
0 winsQwen2.5 Turbo

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, Ministral 3 14B or Qwen2.5 Turbo?

Qwen2.5 Turbo is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.09/M tokens vs $0.20/M for Ministral 3 14B.

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

Ministral 3 14B wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Qwen2.5 Turbo. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

Qwen2.5 Turbo generates tokens faster at 108 tok/s vs 85 tok/s. Ministral 3 14B also has lower time-to-first-token (0.96s vs 2.16s).

When should I use Ministral 3 14B vs Qwen2.5 Turbo?

Choose based on your priorities: Qwen2.5 Turbo for lower cost, Ministral 3 14B for stronger benchmark performance, and Qwen2.5 Turbo for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.