Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Qwen2.5-Max is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limited
Celeris-1 vs Qwen2.5-Max
Updated October 14, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. 1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 1
- Celeris-1 only
- 3
- Qwen2.5-Max only
- 2
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: Celeris-1. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.
Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Qwen2.5-Max is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limitedLong documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Not enough matched evidence
A complete context comparison is not sourced.
Confidence: limitedChat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Celeris-1 does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen2.5-Max has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: listed-ratesCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Celeris-1 does not fit this workload in one request. Celeris-1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen2.5-Max has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: rate-fallbackRepository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Celeris-1 does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen2.5-Max has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: listed-rates
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
11.0Celeris-1—Qwen2.5-Max
Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8
The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
3 Celeris-1 only
1 Shared
2 Qwen2.5-Max only
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
MMLU-ProKnowledge
Normalized gap 0.2Celeris-1:75.9%Qwen2.5-Max:76.1%
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Agentic
Not comparable- Celeris-1
- 7.1
- Estimated · #120/124
- Qwen2.5-Max
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Celeris-1
- 11.0
- Estimated · #141/149
- Qwen2.5-Max
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Celeris-1
- 52.0
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Qwen2.5-Max
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Celeris-1
- Not ranked
- Qwen2.5-Max
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Celeris-1
- 28.5
- Supported · #157/181
- Qwen2.5-Max
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Celeris-1
- Not ranked
- Qwen2.5-Max
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Celeris-1
- Not ranked
- Qwen2.5-Max
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Celeris-1
- Not ranked
- Qwen2.5-Max
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Celeris-1 | Qwen2.5-Max | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 7.1Estimated · #120/124 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 11.0Estimated · #141/149 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 1 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 52.0Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 28.5Supported · #157/181 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 2 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Celeris-1
- $0.00055
- Does not fit in one request
- Qwen2.5-Max
- API rate not published
- Fit state unavailable
Celeris-1 does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen2.5-Max has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Celeris-1
- $0.0121
- Does not fit in one request
- Qwen2.5-Max
- API rate not published
- Fit state unavailable
Celeris-1 does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen2.5-Max has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Celeris-1
- $0.051
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Qwen2.5-Max
- API rate not published
- Fit state unavailable
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Celeris-1 does not fit this workload in one request. Celeris-1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen2.5-Max has no comparable published API token rate.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationCeleris-1Qwen2.5-Max
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Celeris-1
131,072 tokens
Celeris-1 model guideQwen2.5-Max
Unknown
API model ID
Celeris-1
celeris-1
Celeris-1 model guideQwen2.5-Max
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Celeris-1
Not published
Celeris API pricingQwen2.5-Max
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Celeris-1
text, image
Celeris-1 model guideQwen2.5-Max
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Celeris-1
Qwen2.5-Max
Not sourced
Provider availability
Celeris-1
Generally Available · Celeris OpenAI-compatible API (United States)
Celeris availabilityQwen2.5-Max
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Celeris-1
Non-Reasoning
Qwen2.5-Max
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Celeris-1
Proprietary
Qwen2.5-Max
Proprietary
License
Celeris-1
Proprietary
Qwen2.5-Max
Proprietary
Release date
Celeris-1
2026-07-22
Qwen2.5-Max
2025-01-28
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- A complete documented context comparison is not available.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Celeris-1 or Qwen2.5-Max?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Celeris-1 or Qwen2.5-Max?
Qwen2.5-Max is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Celeris-1 or Qwen2.5-Max?
Qwen2.5-Max is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Celeris-1 or Qwen2.5-Max?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Celeris-1 or Qwen2.5-Max?
A complete documented context-window comparison is not available.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence6 rows
Coding
LiveCodeBench
Celeris-1—Qwen2.5-Max38.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
DROP
Celeris-181.4%SourceQwen2.5-Max—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
Instruction following
IFEval
Celeris-180.8%SourceQwen2.5-Max—Not directly comparable
Math
GSM8K
Celeris-193.7%SourceQwen2.5-Max—Not directly comparable
6 public results · 1 shared
Watch Celeris-1 vs Qwen2.5-Max
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 5,500+ readers.
Last updated October 14, 2026