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. | — | 512k |
| 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. | $0.75 | — |
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. | $3.75 | — |
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. | $0.075 | — |
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. | $0.375Google | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.875Google | — |
| Benchmarks | ||
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. | 49% | 61.7% |
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. | 39% | — |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 1Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. Gray Swan's indirect prompt injection benchmark measures how often such an attack succeeds when the attacker gets a single try. Lower is better. | 7.3% | — |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 10Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 10 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | 32.2% | — |
Gray Swan IPI · k = 15Prompt injection robustness — Attackers hide malicious instructions inside content the AI reads — a web page, an email, a document — and try to hijack what it does. This variant gives the attacker 15 tries and counts an attack as successful if any of them works. Lower is better. | 37.3% | — |
ProgramBenchProgram reconstruction — The AI receives a working program and its documentation, then builds a replacement from scratch without the original source code, internet access or decompilation. The score is the percentage of 200 programs that pass every behavioral test. We record each model's best published mini-SWE-agent result, including higher reasoning efforts where available. Partial test-pass rates and almost-solved programs do not count toward this score. Equal scores share a rank here; the official board also uses partial progress to break ties. Higher is better. | 0.5% | — |
MLE-BenchML engineering — Can the AI do the work of a machine-learning engineer? It competes in real Kaggle competitions — building, training, and tuning models end to end — and the score reflects how well it places. Higher is better. | 63.9% | — |
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 |
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. | — | 28.3% |
BU BenchBrowser agent — Can the AI drive a real web browser to finish tasks — clicking, filling forms, and navigating sites the way a person would? Run by Browser Use on their BU Bench task set. Higher is better. | 68% | — |
ARC-AGI-2Abstract reasoning — Puzzle-style tests of abstract reasoning and pattern-finding — the kind of thing people find easy but AIs often struggle with. Higher is better. | 60.4% | — |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 83% | — |
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 v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 1421 | — |
AA-Briefcase v1.1Knowledge work — Artificial Analysis agentic office-work eval (Elo, v1.1 rating fit) | — | 1393 |
threejsevalCommunity preference (Three.js) — Every model gets the same prompt — "the Eiffel Tower", "a glass fishbowl", "a robot arm picking toys into a box" — and builds a 3D scene in Three.js. Real people then see two scenes side by side, names hidden, and vote for the one they prefer. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on threejseval.com, averaged across all the prompts. It measures whether the scene looks and moves right to a human eye, not whether the code passes a test. Higher is better. | 1337 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Mistral | |
| Release date | Jul 21 2026 | Oct 6 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 3.6 FlashvsClaude Sonnet 5.5Mistral Large 4vsClaude Sonnet 5.5Gemini 3.6 FlashvsGPT-6.1 SolMistral Large 4vsGPT-6.1 SolGemini 3.6 FlashvsMuse Spark 1.3Mistral Large 4vsMuse Spark 1.3Gemini 3.6 FlashvsGrok 4.7Mistral Large 4vsGrok 4.7Gemini 3.6 FlashvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashMistral Large 4vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGemini 3.6 FlashvsKimi K3Mistral Large 4vsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Mistral Large 4 leads Gemini 3.6 Flash on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (DeepSWE 1.1). Only Gemini 3.6 Flash has a verified first-party API price: $0.75 per million input tokens and $3.75 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Mistral Large 4. Gemini 3.6 Flash shipped 77 days before Mistral Large 4, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
On DeepSWE 1.1, Mistral Large 4 leads at 61.7% vs Gemini 3.6 Flash at 49%.