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 | 35B |
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. | — | $0.375 |
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. | — | $2.25 |
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. | — | $0.05Darkbloom |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $0.70Darkbloom |
These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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. | — | 49.5% |
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. | — | 73.4% |
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. | — | 67.2% |
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% | — |
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 | — |
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% | — |
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. | — | 51.5% |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | — | 21.4% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 86% |
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 | — |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | — | 78% |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 75.3% |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | — | 81.7% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Mistral | Qwen |
| Release date | Oct 6 2026 | Apr 16 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Mistral Large 4vsClaude Sonnet 5.5Qwen3.6vsClaude Sonnet 5.5Mistral Large 4vsGPT-6.1 SolQwen3.6vsGPT-6.1 SolMistral Large 4vsGemini 4 ArgonQwen3.6vsGemini 4 ArgonMistral Large 4vsMuse Spark 1.3Qwen3.6vsMuse Spark 1.3Mistral Large 4vsGrok 4.7Qwen3.6vsGrok 4.7Mistral Large 4vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashQwen3.6vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashFrequently asked questions
Mistral Large 4 and Qwen3.6 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only Qwen3.6 has a verified first-party API price: $0.375 per million input tokens and $2.25 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Mistral Large 4. Qwen3.6 shipped 173 days before Mistral Large 4, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Mistral Large 4 has 1T parameters, while Qwen3.6 has 35B. Context windows are 512k (Mistral Large 4) vs 256k (Qwen3.6). Mistral Large 4 is closed, while Qwen3.6 is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Mistral Large 4 and Qwen3.6 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.