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 | 80B |
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. | 256k | 256k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins · base tier | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | — | $0.30 |
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. | — | $1.50 |
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. | — | $0.12Parasail |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $0.80Parasail |
| — | $64.00Parasail · bf16 | |
| Benchmarks | ||
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% | 70.6% |
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% | 62.8% |
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% | 36.2% |
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | — | 44.3% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Mistral | Qwen |
| Release date | Dec 9 2025 | Feb 3 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Devstral Small 2 (24B)vsClaude Haiku 5.5Qwen3-Coder-NextvsClaude Haiku 5.5Devstral Small 2 (24B)vsGPT-6.1 SolQwen3-Coder-NextvsGPT-6.1 SolDevstral Small 2 (24B)vsGemini 4 ArgonQwen3-Coder-NextvsGemini 4 ArgonDevstral Small 2 (24B)vsMuse Spark OpenQwen3-Coder-NextvsMuse Spark OpenDevstral Small 2 (24B)vsGrok 4.7Qwen3-Coder-NextvsGrok 4.7Devstral Small 2 (24B)vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Qwen3-Coder-NextvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Frequently asked questions
Qwen3-Coder-Next leads Devstral Small 2 (24B) on 3 of the 3 benchmarks they both report (SWE-Bench Verified, SWE-Bench Multilingual, Terminal-Bench 2.0). Only Qwen3-Coder-Next has a verified first-party API price: $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Devstral Small 2 (24B). Devstral Small 2 (24B) shipped 56 days before Qwen3-Coder-Next, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Devstral Small 2 (24B) has 24B parameters, while Qwen3-Coder-Next has 80B. Context windows are 256k (Devstral Small 2 (24B)) vs 256k (Qwen3-Coder-Next).
On SWE-Bench Verified, Qwen3-Coder-Next leads at 70.6% vs Devstral Small 2 (24B) at 68%. On SWE-Bench Multilingual, Qwen3-Coder-Next leads at 62.8% vs Devstral Small 2 (24B) at 55.7%. On Terminal-Bench 2.0, Qwen3-Coder-Next leads at 36.2% vs Devstral Small 2 (24B) at 22.5%.