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. | — | 24B |
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 | ||
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. | $0.40 | — |
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 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. | $0.05Google AI Studio | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.20Google AI Studio | — |
| $40.00Google list price | — | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | — | 68% |
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. | — | 55.7% |
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. | — | 22.5% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Mistral | |
| Release date | Jun 17 2025 | Dec 9 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 2.5 Flash-LitevsClaude Haiku 5.5Devstral Small 2 (24B)vsClaude Haiku 5.5Gemini 2.5 Flash-LitevsGPT-6.1 SolDevstral Small 2 (24B)vsGPT-6.1 SolGemini 2.5 Flash-LitevsMuse Spark OpenDevstral Small 2 (24B)vsMuse Spark OpenGemini 2.5 Flash-LitevsGrok 4.7Devstral Small 2 (24B)vsGrok 4.7Gemini 2.5 Flash-LitevsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Devstral Small 2 (24B)vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 2.5 Flash-LitevsKimi K3Devstral Small 2 (24B)vsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and Devstral Small 2 (24B) don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has a verified first-party API price: $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Devstral Small 2 (24B). Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite shipped 175 days before Devstral Small 2 (24B), so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite) vs 256k (Devstral Small 2 (24B)). Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is closed, while Devstral Small 2 (24B) is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and Devstral Small 2 (24B) don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.