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 | 743B |
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 | — |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
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. | — | $0.03Relace |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | — | $1.32Novita |
| Benchmarks | ||
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% | 66.9% |
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% | 41.82% |
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% | 48.2% |
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. | — | 72% |
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 3.0Agentic terminal coding — command-line task completion (v3.0, much harder task set) | — | 28.3% |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | — | 88.2% |
CyberGymCybersecurity — Tests the AI on cybersecurity challenges — finding and exploiting software weaknesses inside a safe sandbox. Higher is better. | — | 84.5% |
ExploitBenchCybersecurity — A 'capability ladder' for security research, built by CMU researchers: the AI is given known bugs in Chrome's V8 engine and scored on how far it gets toward a working exploit inside a research sandbox — from understanding the patch to triggering a crash. Higher is better. | — | 54.4% |
ExploitGym · 6-hour budgetCybersecurity — Can an AI agent turn a known software vulnerability into a working attack in a controlled lab? Built by MPI-SP researchers, the score is how many of 898 real cases (userspace programs, the V8 engine, the Linux kernel) it cracks — here with a 6-hour compute budget per case. Higher is better. | — | 130 |
ExploitGym · 2-hour budgetCybersecurity — Can an AI agent turn a known software vulnerability into a working attack in a controlled lab? Built by MPI-SP researchers, the score is how many of 898 real cases (userspace programs, the V8 engine, the Linux kernel) it cracks — here with a 2-hour compute budget per case. Higher is better. | — | 105 |
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. | — | 62.5% |
Agent's Last Exam · pass@1Agentic computer use — A hard set of desktop and operating-system tasks an AI agent has to finish by looking at the screen and working the machine itself. The score is the share it passes outright — partial credit does not count. Higher is better. | — | 28.5% |
GDPval-AA v2Knowledge work — economically valuable knowledge work (v2, re-based Elo) | — | 1769 |
AA-Briefcase v1.1Knowledge work — Artificial Analysis agentic office-work eval (Elo, v1.1 rating fit) | 1393 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Mistral | Z.ai |
| Release date | Oct 6 2026 | Aug 14 2026 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Mistral Large 4vsClaude Sonnet 5.5GLM-5.3vsClaude Sonnet 5.5Mistral Large 4vsGPT-6.1 SolGLM-5.3vsGPT-6.1 SolMistral Large 4vsGemini 4 ArgonGLM-5.3vsGemini 4 ArgonMistral Large 4vsMuse Spark 1.3GLM-5.3vsMuse Spark 1.3Mistral Large 4vsGrok 4.7GLM-5.3vsGrok 4.7Mistral Large 4vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGLM-5.3vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashFrequently asked questions
GLM-5.3 leads Mistral Large 4 on 2 of the 3 benchmarks they both report (DeepSWE 1.1, Terminal-Bench 4.0, AutomationBench). GLM-5.3 shipped 53 days before Mistral Large 4, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Mistral Large 4 has 1T parameters, while GLM-5.3 has 743B. Mistral Large 4 is closed, while GLM-5.3 is open weight.
On DeepSWE 1.1, GLM-5.3 leads at 66.9% vs Mistral Large 4 at 61.7%. On Terminal-Bench 4.0, GLM-5.3 leads at 41.82% vs Mistral Large 4 at 28.3%. On AutomationBench, Mistral Large 4 leads at 59.9% vs GLM-5.3 at 48.2%.