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 | — |
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 | 400k |
| 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. | — | $1.75 |
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. | — | $14.00 |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | — | $0.175 |
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 | $1.75Azure |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.555Cloudflare | $14.00Azure |
| $97.95Cloudflare | $1,050OpenAI list price | |
| 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. | — | 24% |
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. | — | 85% |
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | — | 68% |
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% | — |
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% | — |
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% | — |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | — | 64.7% |
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% | — |
threejsevalCommunity preference (Three.js) — Every model gets the same prompt — "the Eiffel Tower", "a glass fishbowl", "a robot arm picking toys into a box" — and builds a 3D scene in Three.js. Real people then see two scenes side by side, names hidden, and vote for the one they prefer. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on threejseval.com, averaged across all the prompts. It measures whether the scene looks and moves right to a human eye, not whether the code passes a test. Higher is better. | — | 1171 |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Mistral | OpenAI |
| Release date | Mar 17 2025 | Feb 5 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Mistral Small 3.1vsClaude Haiku 5.5GPT-5.3-CodexvsClaude Haiku 5.5Mistral Small 3.1vsGemini 4 ArgonGPT-5.3-CodexvsGemini 4 ArgonMistral Small 3.1vsMuse Spark OpenGPT-5.3-CodexvsMuse Spark OpenMistral Small 3.1vsGrok 4.7GPT-5.3-CodexvsGrok 4.7Mistral Small 3.1vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-5.3-CodexvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Mistral Small 3.1vsKimi K3GPT-5.3-CodexvsKimi K3Frequently asked questions
Mistral Small 3.1 and GPT-5.3-Codex don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only GPT-5.3-Codex has a verified first-party API price: $1.75 per million input tokens and $14.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Mistral Small 3.1. Mistral Small 3.1 shipped 325 days before GPT-5.3-Codex, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 128k (Mistral Small 3.1) vs 400k (GPT-5.3-Codex). Mistral Small 3.1 is open weight, while GPT-5.3-Codex is closed.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Mistral Small 3.1 and GPT-5.3-Codex don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.