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. | 128B | 120B |
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. | 256k | 1M |
| 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. | $1.50 | — |
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. | $7.50 | — |
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. | $1.50Mistral | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $7.50Mistral | — |
| $675Mistral list price | — | |
| 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. | 77.6% | 71.1% |
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. | — | 51.78% |
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. | — | 67.72% |
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. | — | 88.22% |
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. | — | 66.7% |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | — | 78% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 89.52% |
IFBenchInstruction following — Tests whether the AI can follow detailed instructions and satisfy multiple constraints at once. Higher is better. | — | 70.86% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Mistral | NVIDIA |
| Release date | Apr 29 2026 | Oct 15 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Mistral Medium 3.5vsClaude Haiku 5.5Nemotron 3.5 Super VLvsClaude Haiku 5.5Mistral Medium 3.5vsGPT-6.1 SolNemotron 3.5 Super VLvsGPT-6.1 SolMistral Medium 3.5vsGemini 4 ArgonNemotron 3.5 Super VLvsGemini 4 ArgonMistral Medium 3.5vsMuse Spark OpenNemotron 3.5 Super VLvsMuse Spark OpenMistral Medium 3.5vsGrok 4.7Nemotron 3.5 Super VLvsGrok 4.7Mistral Medium 3.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashNemotron 3.5 Super VLvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashFrequently asked questions
Mistral Medium 3.5 leads Nemotron 3.5 Super VL on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (SWE-Bench Verified). Only Mistral Medium 3.5 has a verified first-party API price: $1.50 per million input tokens and $7.50 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Nemotron 3.5 Super VL. Mistral Medium 3.5 shipped 169 days before Nemotron 3.5 Super VL, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Mistral Medium 3.5 has 128B parameters, while Nemotron 3.5 Super VL has 120B. Context windows are 256k (Mistral Medium 3.5) vs 1M (Nemotron 3.5 Super VL).
On SWE-Bench Verified, Mistral Medium 3.5 leads at 77.6% vs Nemotron 3.5 Super VL at 71.1%.