Compare AI models
| Specifications | ||
ParametersThe learned values that shape how a model responds. B means billion and T means trillion. For mixture-of-experts models, the total count is larger than the number active for each token. Parameter count alone does not measure quality. | 24B | 9B |
Context windowHow much information the model can work with in one request, measured in tokens — pieces of words or other data. This includes your question, attachments, conversation and reply. Limits can vary by model variant and provider. | 128k | 128k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
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. | $0.351Cloudflare | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.555Cloudflare | — |
| $97.95Cloudflare | — | |
| Benchmarks | ||
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 45.96% | 64% |
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% |
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% |
HumanEvalFunction synthesis — 164 small Python problems: the AI is given a function's description and has to write the working function. This was the coding benchmark of the GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 era, before the field moved to fixing real bugs in real repositories. Higher is better. | 88.41% | — |
MMLUGeneral knowledge — A 57-subject multiple-choice exam — history, law, medicine, maths — that was the standard measure of how much a model knows from 2020 until roughly 2024, when frontier scores crowded into the high 80s and labs moved on to harder tests. The scores here were published years apart under different testing setups, so read them as a historical record rather than a like-for-like ranking. Higher is better. | 80.62% | — |
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 49.25% | — |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | 64% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Mistral | NVIDIA |
| Release date | Mar 17 2025 | Aug 18 2025 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Mistral Small 3.1vsClaude Haiku 5.5Nemotron Nano 2vsClaude Haiku 5.5Mistral Small 3.1vsGPT-6.1 SolNemotron Nano 2vsGPT-6.1 SolMistral Small 3.1vsGemini 4 ArgonNemotron Nano 2vsGemini 4 ArgonMistral Small 3.1vsMuse Spark OpenNemotron Nano 2vsMuse Spark OpenMistral Small 3.1vsGrok 4.7Nemotron Nano 2vsGrok 4.7Mistral Small 3.1vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Nemotron Nano 2vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Frequently asked questions
Nemotron Nano 2 leads Mistral Small 3.1 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (GPQA Diamond). Mistral Small 3.1 shipped 154 days before Nemotron Nano 2, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Mistral Small 3.1 has 24B parameters, while Nemotron Nano 2 has 9B. Context windows are 128k (Mistral Small 3.1) vs 128k (Nemotron Nano 2).
On GPQA Diamond, Nemotron Nano 2 leads at 64% vs Mistral Small 3.1 at 45.96%.