Home › Compare › Qwen 3 32B vs Mistral Nemo
Qwen 3 32B vs Mistral Nemo
A straight cost comparison of Qwen 3 32B (Alibaba (Qwen)) and Mistral Nemo (Mistral AI), per 1,000,000 tokens, verified November 2026.
Rate-by-rate comparison
| Metric | Qwen 3 32B | Mistral Nemo | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M | $0.15 | $0.15 | Tie |
| Cached input / 1M | $0.015 | $0.015 | Tie |
| Cache write / 1M |  |  | Tie |
| Output / 1M | $0.60 | $0.15 | Mistral Nemo |
| Context window | 131,072 | 128,000 | Qwen 3 32B |
| Batch API | Yes | Yes | Tie |
| Long-context tier | None | None |  |
For per-token metrics, the lower number wins. For context window and batch support, the higher or broader option wins. A dash means the provider does not publish that rate: a missing cache-write fee means writes are not billed per token, while a missing cached-input rate means cache hits bill at the full input rate.
Blended cost: 1M input + 250K output
| Model | Blended cost | Difference |
|---|---|---|
| Qwen 3 32B | $0.30 | +$0.112 |
| Mistral Nemo | $0.188 | Cheaper |
Ten workloads, two bills
The same two models, priced across ten workloads that differ only in their input:output ratio. Nothing else changes  no retries, no system prompt, no middleware.
| Workload | Qwen 3 32B | Mistral Nemo | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Classification 100K reqs · 500 in / 10 out | $8.10 | $7.65 | Mistral Nemo |
| Data extraction 10K reqs · 2K in / 200 out | $4.20 | $3.30 | Mistral Nemo |
| Support chat 1K reqs · 4K in / 600 out | $0.96 | $0.69 | Mistral Nemo |
| Code review 2K reqs · 8K in / 1.5K out | $4.20 | $2.85 | Mistral Nemo |
| Summarisation 1K reqs · 20K in / 1K out | $3.60 | $3.15 | Mistral Nemo |
| Agent loop 5K reqs · 12K in / 2K out | $15 | $10.50 | Mistral Nemo |
| Translation 500 reqs · 15K in / 15K out | $5.63 | $2.25 | Mistral Nemo |
| Long-document QA 200 reqs · 120K in / 800 out | $3.70 | $3.62 | Mistral Nemo |
| Cached RAG 1K reqs · 50K in (45K cached) / 1K out | $2.03 | $1.58 | Mistral Nemo |
| Nightly batch 10K reqs · 10K in / 2K out | $13.50 | $9 | Mistral Nemo |
Qwen 3 32B wins 0 of 10, Mistral Nemo wins 10 of 10. The winner is set by the token mix, not by the headline rate.
Where the two bills cross over
The two are priced identically on one side of the token mix ($0.15 input, $0.60 output), so the crossover is decided entirely by the other side  the cheaper model on that side wins at every ratio.
Cost at four scales
The same support-chat workload (4K input, 600 output per request) at four monthly volumes.
| Requests / month | Qwen 3 32B | Mistral Nemo | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | $0.096 | $0.069 | Mistral Nemo cheaper by $0.027 |
| 1,000 | $0.96 | $0.69 | Mistral Nemo cheaper by $0.27 |
| 10,000 | $9.60 | $6.90 | Mistral Nemo cheaper by $2.70 |
| 100,000 | $96 | $69 | Mistral Nemo cheaper by $27 |
What caching does to each bill
Caching only helps the part of the prompt that repeats. This is the support-chat workload (1,000 requests, 4,000 input tokens each) with an increasing share of that prompt served from a warm cache, written once on the first request.
| Cached share of the prompt | Qwen 3 32B | Mistral Nemo | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0% | $0.96 | $0.69 | Mistral Nemo |
| 50% | $0.69 | $0.42 | Mistral Nemo |
| 80% | $0.528 | $0.258 | Mistral Nemo |
| 95% | $0.448 | $0.178 | Mistral Nemo |
Both models publish a cached-read rate, so the discount is comparable: Qwen 3 32B reads cache at $0.015 per million, Mistral Nemo at $0.015.
Which one should you pick?
Qwen 3 32B wins on none of the ten workloads above, while Mistral Nemo wins on classification, data extraction, support chat, code review, summarisation, agent loop, translation, long-document qa, cached rag, nightly batch.
Beyond price, the two differ on output rate ($0.60 vs $0.15); context window (131,072 vs 128,000).
Batch mode is available on Qwen 3 32B and Mistral Nemo, which halves the nightly job. Both publish cached-input discounts, so a stable system prompt is worth caching on either.
FAQ
Is Qwen 3 32B cheaper than Mistral Nemo?
On a blended 1M-input-plus-250K-output workload, Mistral Nemo is cheaper by 38% ($0.188 vs $0.30). The gap changes for cache-heavy prompts and for batch jobs, as the workload table shows.
Which handles longer prompts, Qwen 3 32B or Mistral Nemo?
Qwen 3 32B has the larger context window (131,072 vs 128,000 tokens). Neither model publishes a long-context surcharge.
Do both models support prompt caching?
Qwen 3 32B bills cached reads at $0.015 per 1M; Mistral Nemo at $0.015.
Related comparisons
- Qwen 3 32B vs Qwen 3 8B
- Qwen 3 235B vs Qwen 3 32B
- Mistral Small vs Mistral Nemo
- All Alibaba (Qwen) pricing
- All Mistral AI pricing