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. | — | 128B |
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 | 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. | — | $1.50 |
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. | — | $7.50 |
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 | $1.50Mistral |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.875Google | $7.50Mistral |
These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
CheatBenchCheating rate — Measures how often AI agents try to cheat on difficult assignments, such as reading hidden answers, copying work or manipulating grading. The overall score gives equal weight to ten categories; the sycophancy category measures how far an agent shifts its beliefs toward a user's stated views. Scores describe each model in its tested agent setup, and task success is measured separately. Lower is better. | 75.2% | — |
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. | — | 77.6% |
CursorBench 4.0Agentic coding — Cursor's own test of coding agents on ambiguous, multi-file tasks taken from real Cursor sessions — editing, refactoring, investigating a codebase, understanding what the user meant, managing jobs and following a design. Cursor runs each model at several reasoning efforts; each release here carries the score of its best listed effort. Scores aren't comparable with earlier CursorBench versions. Higher is better. | 39.6% | — |
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. | 71% | — |
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | 90% | — |
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. | 19.1% | — |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | 89.4% | — |
Humanity's Last Exam (Verified)Multidisciplinary reasoning — The re-checked edition of Humanity's Last Exam: the same extremely hard expert questions, minus the ones found to be flawed or wrongly answered. Scores on it run lower than on the original exam, so read the two as separate tests rather than a before-and-after. Higher is better. | 54.9% | — |
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. | 89.2% | — |
BioMysteryBench · hardBiology — Real unsolved-style biology puzzles — the AI has to reason its way to an answer the way a research biologist would. The “hard” split contains the toughest cases. Higher is better. | 56.5% | — |
BioMysteryBench · human solvedBiology — Real biology puzzles that human experts have managed to crack — can the AI reach the same answers? Higher is better. | 88.8% | — |
LAB-Bench 2Biology — Everyday tasks from a working biology lab — reading protocols, interpreting figures and sequence data, and answering the practical questions a researcher hits at the bench. Higher is better. | 86.2% | — |
OSWorld 2.0Agentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.0 is a harder, refreshed task set. Higher is better. | 59% | — |
Finance Agent v2Agentic financial analysis — Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | 61.4% | — |
Harvey's Legal Agent BenchmarkAgentic legal work — Harvey's test of whether an AI agent can complete real legal work — drafting and reviewing documents, working with spreadsheets and presentations, and navigating files the way a lawyer's assistant would. Higher is better. | 10% | — |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | 1545 | — |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 86.2% | — |
GDP.PDFDocument comprehension — Real professional PDFs — filings, reports, technical documents — with questions an expert in that field would ask. Tests whether the AI reads the page as a document, layout and figures included, rather than as loose text. Higher is better. | 35% | — |
LVBenchVideo understanding — Can the AI follow a very long video — up to an hour — and answer questions that need details from far apart in it? Higher is better. | 87.1% | — |
LVBench · agenticVideo understanding — The same long-video test, run with the AI free to navigate the video itself — skipping around, replaying sections — rather than being shown it once. Read it as a separate test from the unaided run above. Higher is better. | 87.8% | — |
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. | 1557 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Mistral | |
| Release date | Sep 2 2026 | Apr 29 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 3.8 FlashvsClaude Sonnet 5.5Mistral Medium 3.5vsClaude Sonnet 5.5Gemini 3.8 FlashvsGPT-6.1 SolMistral Medium 3.5vsGPT-6.1 SolGemini 3.8 FlashvsMuse Spark 1.3Mistral Medium 3.5vsMuse Spark 1.3Gemini 3.8 FlashvsGrok 4.7Mistral Medium 3.5vsGrok 4.7Gemini 3.8 FlashvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashMistral Medium 3.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGemini 3.8 FlashvsKimi K3Mistral Medium 3.5vsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Gemini 3.8 Flash and Mistral Medium 3.5 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only Mistral Medium 3.5 has a verified first-party API price: $1.50 per million input tokens and $7.50 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Gemini 3.8 Flash. Mistral Medium 3.5 shipped 126 days before Gemini 3.8 Flash, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Gemini 3.8 Flash) vs 256k (Mistral Medium 3.5). Gemini 3.8 Flash is closed, while Mistral Medium 3.5 is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Gemini 3.8 Flash and Mistral Medium 3.5 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.