Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
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. | — | 1.05M |
| 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. | $0.50 | $2.00 |
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 | $10.00 |
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. | $0.50Mistral | $2.00Azure |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $1.50Mistral | $10.00Azure |
| Benchmarks | ||
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. | 2% | 65% |
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. | — | 49.3% |
Auto-review circumvention (Internal)Safety-review circumvention — OpenAI's internal safety check on how often a model finds ways around its own automated review — the guardrail that inspects what it is about to do. This one counts failures, so lower is better and zero is the goal. | — | 0% |
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. | — | 75.2% |
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. | — | 57.1% |
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. | — | 71.4% |
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. | — | 36.2% |
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. | — | 32% |
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. | — | 1968 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Mistral | OpenAI |
| Release date | Dec 2 2025 | Sep 29 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Mistral Large 3vsClaude Haiku 5.5GPT-6.1 SolvsClaude Haiku 5.5Mistral Large 3vsGemini 4 ArgonGPT-6.1 SolvsGemini 4 ArgonMistral Large 3vsMuse Spark 1.3GPT-6.1 SolvsMuse Spark 1.3Mistral Large 3vsGrok 4.7GPT-6.1 SolvsGrok 4.7Mistral Large 3vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGPT-6.1 SolvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashMistral Large 3vsKimi K3GPT-6.1 SolvsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
GPT-6.1 Sol leads Mistral Large 3 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (BullshitBench v2). Mistral Large 3 is cheaper on both input and output: $0.50 vs $2.00 per million input tokens, and $1.50 vs $10.00 per million output tokens. Mistral Large 3 shipped 301 days before GPT-6.1 Sol, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Mistral Large 3 is open weight, while GPT-6.1 Sol is closed.
On BullshitBench v2, GPT-6.1 Sol leads at 65% vs Mistral Large 3 at 2%.