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. | — | 7B |
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. | $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 | — |
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 | — |
| $675Google list price | — | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | 51.4% | — |
OSWorld 2.1 · offlineAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.1, in its offline setting. Scores are not comparable with version 2.0. Higher is better. | 77.6% | — |
AutomationBench (Artificial Analysis)Business workflows — The same business-workflow test, run by Artificial Analysis rather than by the lab, and graded strict pass@1: a workflow counts only if the whole of it is right on the first attempt. Read it as a separate board from the lab-run AutomationBench scores. Higher is better. | 76.1% | — |
Vending-Bench 2 (USD)Business simulation — ending bank balance in US dollars in Andon Labs’ vending-business simulation; higher is better | 14549 | — |
Chartography · no toolsChart tasks — The same chart-centred test with no tools: the AI has to read each chart unaided. Scores run far lower than the with-tools version, so read the two as separate tests. Higher is better. | 66.6% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Mistral | |
| Release date | Nov 12 2026 | Jul 16 2024 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Gemini 4 HydrogenvsClaude Fable 5.2Codestral Mamba 7BvsClaude Fable 5.2Gemini 4 HydrogenvsGPT-6.1 TerraCodestral Mamba 7BvsGPT-6.1 TerraGemini 4 HydrogenvsMuse EmberCodestral Mamba 7BvsMuse EmberGemini 4 HydrogenvsGrok 4.7Codestral Mamba 7BvsGrok 4.7Gemini 4 HydrogenvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Codestral Mamba 7BvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Gemini 4 HydrogenvsKimi K3.1 ProCodestral Mamba 7BvsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
Gemini 4 Hydrogen and Codestral Mamba 7B don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only Gemini 4 Hydrogen has a verified first-party price for an available API: $1.50 per million input tokens and $7.50 per million output tokens. No currently available pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Codestral Mamba 7B. Codestral Mamba 7B shipped 849 days before Gemini 4 Hydrogen, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 1M (Gemini 4 Hydrogen) vs 256k (Codestral Mamba 7B). Gemini 4 Hydrogen is closed, while Codestral Mamba 7B is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Gemini 4 Hydrogen and Codestral Mamba 7B don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.