Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | — | 1T |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | 1M | 512k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins · base tier | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $0.10 | — |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $0.50 | — |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | $0.01 | — |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | — | $0.68Mistral |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $2.09Mistral |
| Benchmarks | ||
Terminal-Bench 4.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Version 4.0 recalibrated how much time, CPU and memory each task gets, removed eight tasks and fixed nineteen, so fewer runs fail for reasons that have nothing to do with the model. Scores are not comparable with earlier versions. Higher is better. | 39.2% | 28.3% |
AA-Briefcase v1.1Knowledge work — Artificial Analysis agentic office-work eval (Elo, v1.1 rating fit) | 1578 | 1393 |
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 61.7% |
FrontierCode v1.1 (Main) · main splitAgentic coding — A set of very hard, frontier-difficulty coding tasks an AI agent has to complete end to end. The score is the share of tasks in the main split it solves. Higher is better. | 46.4% | — |
SWEAtlas CodeBase QnACodebase understanding — Questions about how an unfamiliar codebase actually works — where something is handled, what a change would touch — answered by reading the repository rather than editing it. Tests understanding rather than patch-writing. Higher is better. | — | 59.4% |
AA Coding Agent IndexAgentic coding — Artificial Analysis' overall score for coding agents, combining three coding benchmarks with what each run costs and how many tokens it burns. It rates a model paired with a particular agent harness rather than the model alone, so the same model scores differently in different tools. Higher is better. | — | 49.8 |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | 45.9% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 57.4% | — |
OSWorld 2.1 (offline)Agentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.1, in its offline setting. Scores are not comparable with version 2.0. Higher is better. | 72.4% | — |
AutomationBenchBusiness workflows — Tests whether the AI can run real multi-step business workflows — the kind of end-to-end office processes companies want to automate — from start to finish. Higher is better. | — | 59.9% |
GDPval-AA v2.1Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2.1, Crowd-BT Elo fit) | 1620 | — |
Chartography · no toolsChart tasks — The same chart-centred test with no tools: the AI has to read each chart unaided. Scores run far lower than the with-tools version, so read the two as separate tests. Higher is better. | 46.4% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | Mistral |
| Release date | Oct 7 2026 | Oct 6 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Claude Haiku 5.5vsGPT-6.1 SolMistral Large 4vsGPT-6.1 SolClaude Haiku 5.5vsGemini 4 ArgonMistral Large 4vsGemini 4 ArgonClaude Haiku 5.5vsMuse Spark 1.3Mistral Large 4vsMuse Spark 1.3Claude Haiku 5.5vsGrok 4.7Mistral Large 4vsGrok 4.7Claude Haiku 5.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashMistral Large 4vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashClaude Haiku 5.5vsKimi K3Mistral Large 4vsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Claude Haiku 5.5 leads Mistral Large 4 on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (Terminal-Bench 4.0, AA-Briefcase v1.1). Only Claude Haiku 5.5 has a verified first-party API price: $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Mistral Large 4. Mistral Large 4 shipped 1 days before Claude Haiku 5.5, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Claude Haiku 5.5) vs 512k (Mistral Large 4).
On Terminal-Bench 4.0, Claude Haiku 5.5 leads at 39.2% vs Mistral Large 4 at 28.3%. On AA-Briefcase v1.1, Claude Haiku 5.5 leads at 1578 vs Mistral Large 4 at 1393.