Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersThe learned values that shape how a model responds. B means billion and T means trillion. For mixture-of-experts models, the total count is larger than the number active for each token. Parameter count alone does not measure quality. | — | 123B |
Context windowHow much information the model can work with in one request, measured in tokens — pieces of words or other data. This includes your question, attachments, conversation and reply. Limits can vary by model variant and provider. | 1M | 256k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | — | $0.40Mistral |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $2.00Mistral |
| — | $180Mistral | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 15% | — |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | — | 72.2% |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | — | 61.3% |
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 32.6% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Mistral | |
| Release date | Jan 30 2025 | Dec 9 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 2.0 FlashvsClaude Haiku 5.5Devstral 2 (123B)vsClaude Haiku 5.5Gemini 2.0 FlashvsGPT-6.1 SolDevstral 2 (123B)vsGPT-6.1 SolGemini 2.0 FlashvsMuse Spark OpenDevstral 2 (123B)vsMuse Spark OpenGemini 2.0 FlashvsGrok 4.7Devstral 2 (123B)vsGrok 4.7Gemini 2.0 FlashvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Devstral 2 (123B)vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 2.0 FlashvsKimi K3Devstral 2 (123B)vsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Gemini 2.0 Flash and Devstral 2 (123B) don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Gemini 2.0 Flash shipped 313 days before Devstral 2 (123B), so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Gemini 2.0 Flash) vs 256k (Devstral 2 (123B)). Gemini 2.0 Flash is closed, while Devstral 2 (123B) is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Gemini 2.0 Flash and Devstral 2 (123B) don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.