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. | — | 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. | $2.00 | $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. | $10.00 | $7.50 |
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. | $0.10 | — |
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. | — | $1.50Mistral |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $7.50Mistral |
These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | 0.7% | — |
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% |
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. | 77.9% | — |
FrontierSWE V2Ultra-long-horizon coding — Engineering problems that would occupy a person for days: systems implementation, performance work, scientific computing and AI research, with up to twenty hours per task. Partial credit is awarded, because finishing one outright is still rare. Higher is better. | 55% | — |
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. | 57.4% | — |
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1Agentic scientific computing — The same command-line setup as Terminal-Bench, pointed at scientific work: the AI has to drive research tooling and computational workflows through to a result, rather than administer a machine. Version 0.1 is the first release of the task set, and scores run lower than on the general board. Higher is better. | 57.6% | — |
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. | 88.8% | — |
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. | 69.2% | — |
Agent's Last Exam · pass@1Agentic computer use — A hard set of desktop and operating-system tasks an AI agent has to finish by looking at the screen and working the machine itself. The score is the share it passes outright — partial credit does not count. Higher is better. | 39.5% | — |
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. | 51.3% | — |
Finance Agent v2Agentic financial analysis — Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | 65.4% | — |
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. | 19.6% | — |
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. | 91.7% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Mistral | |
| Release date | Sep 30 2026 | Apr 29 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 4 ArgonvsClaude Sonnet 5.5Mistral Medium 3.5vsClaude Sonnet 5.5Gemini 4 ArgonvsGPT-6.1 SolMistral Medium 3.5vsGPT-6.1 SolGemini 4 ArgonvsMuse Spark 1.3Mistral Medium 3.5vsMuse Spark 1.3Gemini 4 ArgonvsGrok 4.7Mistral Medium 3.5vsGrok 4.7Gemini 4 ArgonvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashMistral Medium 3.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGemini 4 ArgonvsKimi K3Mistral Medium 3.5vsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Gemini 4 Argon and Mistral Medium 3.5 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Mistral Medium 3.5 is cheaper on both input and output: $1.50 vs $2.00 per million input tokens, and $7.50 vs $10.00 per million output tokens. Mistral Medium 3.5 shipped 154 days before Gemini 4 Argon, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Gemini 4 Argon is closed, while Mistral Medium 3.5 is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Gemini 4 Argon and Mistral Medium 3.5 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.