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. | 1T | 1T |
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. | 512k | 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. | — | $0.60 |
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. | — | $3.00 |
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. | — | $0.45SiliconFlow |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $2.25SiliconFlow |
These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | — | 52% |
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. | — | 76.8% |
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. | 61.7% | — |
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. | — | 16% |
SWEAtlas CodeBase QnACodebase understanding — Questions about how an unfamiliar codebase actually works — where something is handled, what a change would touch — answered by reading the repository rather than editing it. Tests understanding rather than patch-writing. Higher is better. | 59.4% | — |
AA Coding Agent IndexAgentic coding — Artificial Analysis' overall score for coding agents, combining three coding benchmarks with what each run costs and how many tokens it burns. It rates a model paired with a particular agent harness rather than the model alone, so the same model scores differently in different tools. Higher is better. | 49.8 | — |
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | — | 85% |
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. | 28.3% | — |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | — | 60.6% |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | — | 30.1% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 87.6% |
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. | 59.9% | — |
AA-Briefcase v1.1Knowledge work — Artificial Analysis agentic office-work eval (Elo, v1.1 rating fit) | 1393 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Mistral | Moonshot AI |
| Release date | Oct 6 2026 | Jan 27 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Mistral Large 4vsClaude Sonnet 5.5Kimi K2.5vsClaude Sonnet 5.5Mistral Large 4vsGPT-6.1 SolKimi K2.5vsGPT-6.1 SolMistral Large 4vsGemini 4 ArgonKimi K2.5vsGemini 4 ArgonMistral Large 4vsMuse Spark 1.3Kimi K2.5vsMuse Spark 1.3Mistral Large 4vsGrok 4.7Kimi K2.5vsGrok 4.7Mistral Large 4vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashKimi K2.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashFrequently asked questions
Mistral Large 4 and Kimi K2.5 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only Kimi K2.5 has a verified first-party API price: $0.60 per million input tokens and $3.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Mistral Large 4. Kimi K2.5 shipped 252 days before Mistral Large 4, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Mistral Large 4 has 1T parameters, while Kimi K2.5 has 1T. Context windows are 512k (Mistral Large 4) vs 256k (Kimi K2.5). Mistral Large 4 is closed, while Kimi K2.5 is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Mistral Large 4 and Kimi K2.5 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.