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 | 9B |
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 | — |
| 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 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. | $1.50Mistral | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $7.50Mistral | — |
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. | — | 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. | 77.6% | — |
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. | — | 71.1% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 64% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Mistral | NVIDIA |
| Release date | Apr 29 2026 | Aug 18 2025 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Mistral Medium 3.5vsClaude Haiku 5.5Nemotron Nano 2vsClaude Haiku 5.5Mistral Medium 3.5vsGPT-6.1 SolNemotron Nano 2vsGPT-6.1 SolMistral Medium 3.5vsGemini 4 ArgonNemotron Nano 2vsGemini 4 ArgonMistral Medium 3.5vsMuse Spark 1.3Nemotron Nano 2vsMuse Spark 1.3Mistral Medium 3.5vsGrok 4.7Nemotron Nano 2vsGrok 4.7Mistral Medium 3.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashNemotron Nano 2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashFrequently asked questions
Mistral Medium 3.5 and Nemotron Nano 2 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. 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 Nano 2. Nemotron Nano 2 shipped 254 days before Mistral Medium 3.5, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Mistral Medium 3.5 has 128B parameters, while Nemotron Nano 2 has 9B.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Mistral Medium 3.5 and Nemotron Nano 2 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.