Qwen2.5 72B Instruct vs Qwen Image 3 Pro: which should you choose in 2026?
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct (by Qwen) and Qwen Image 3 Pro (by Qwen) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
Choose Qwen2.5 72B Instruct if…
- • your own prompt tests favor its output; shared comparable evidence does not identify a unique advantage
Choose Qwen Image 3 Pro if…
- • you need image inputs
- • you need image generation
The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct | Qwen Image 3 Pro |
|---|---|---|
A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework. Guardrail-aware score | — | — |
A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing. Accuracy | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | — |
A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests. Resolved | — | — |
Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol. Mean task success | — | — |
A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench. Weighted peer-assessment score | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | — | — |
A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged. Accuracy | — | — |
Benchmark sources
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct | Qwen Image 3 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | Qwen | Qwen |
| API provider | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct | Qwen |
| Input context | 32,768 tokens | 65,536 tokens |
| Maximum output | 16,384 tokens | — |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Sep 19, 2024 | Aug 5, 2026 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2024-06-30 | — |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text | Text, Image |
| Outputs | Text | Image |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Vision | No | Yes |
| Image Generation | No | Yes |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not measured |
| Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table. | ||
Data sources
- Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)
Catalog data last updated Aug 5, 2026.
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct vs Qwen Image 3 Pro FAQ
Which is better, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct or Qwen Image 3 Pro?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
A comparable blended token price is not available for both models. Check the API pricing rows for the values that are currently published.
Which model supports more context?
Comparable context-window data is not available for both models.
Can I switch between Qwen2.5 72B Instruct and Qwen Image 3 Pro?
Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.
Related comparisons
More Qwen2.5 72B Instruct comparisons
Muse Spark 1.2 Contributor
Meta
Muse Spark 1.2 contributor tier is a reasoning model from Meta designed for developers who want to start building at an even lower cost.
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp
DeepSeek
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp is a model by DeepSeek.
Ox Alpha
Stealth
Ox Alpha is a reasoning model designed for coding, sustained agentic work, and production workloads.
Hy-MT2-1.8B
Tencent
Hy-MT2-1.8B is a compact 1.8B-parameter translation model from Tencent.
Hy-MT2-30B-A3B
Tencent
Hy-MT2-30B-A3B is Tencent's flagship translation model in the Hy-MT2 family.
Hy-MT2-7B
Tencent
Hy-MT2-7B is a 7B-parameter translation model from Tencent.
More Qwen Image 3 Pro comparisons
Seedream 5.0 Lite
ByteDance
Seedream 5.0 Lite is an image generation model from ByteDance Seed.
Seedream 5.0 Pro
ByteDance
Seedream 5.0 Pro is an image generation and editing model from ByteDance Seed.
Grok Imagine Image 2.0
xAI
Grok Imagine Image 2.0 is an image generation and editing model from xAI.
MAI-Image-2.5 Pro
Microsoft
Microsoft's MAI-Image-2.5 is a high-quality image generation model available via Azure AI Foundry.
Krea 2 Large
Krea
Krea 2 Large is Krea's high-capability image generation model, more than twice the size of Krea 2 Medium.
Krea 2 Medium
Krea
Krea 2 Medium is Krea's balanced, cost-efficient image generation model and a practical starting point for a broad range of use cases.