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 | 1.05M |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins · base tier | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | — | $1.00 |
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. | — | $5.00 |
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. | — | $0.05 |
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 | $450OpenAI list price | |
| Benchmarks | ||
MMMU-ProMultimodal reasoning — A tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 49.25% | 85.5% |
OpenAI Factuality (Internal)Factual error rate — OpenAI's internal test uses prompts designed to provoke factual mistakes. The score is the percentage of answers containing at least one factual error, at the model's best published reasoning effort. It is not the percentage of individual claims that are wrong or an error rate for everyday use. Lower is better. | — | 4.3% |
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% | — |
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. | — | 50.3% |
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1Agentic scientific computing — The same command-line setup as Terminal-Bench, pointed at scientific work: the AI has to drive research tooling and computational workflows through to a result, rather than administer a machine. Version 0.1 is the first release of the task set, and scores run lower than on the general board. Higher is better. | — | 58.3% |
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 2.1 (offline)Agentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.1, in its offline setting. Scores are not comparable with version 2.0. Higher is better. | — | 74.2% |
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. | — | 60% |
MMMUMultimodal — Tests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | 64% | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Mistral | OpenAI |
| Release date | Mar 17 2025 | Oct 26 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Mistral Small 3.1vsClaude Haiku 5.5GPT-6.1 TerravsClaude Haiku 5.5Mistral Small 3.1vsGemini 4 ArgonGPT-6.1 TerravsGemini 4 ArgonMistral Small 3.1vsMuse Spark OpenGPT-6.1 TerravsMuse Spark OpenMistral Small 3.1vsGrok 4.7GPT-6.1 TerravsGrok 4.7Mistral Small 3.1vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017GPT-6.1 TerravsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Mistral Small 3.1vsKimi K3.1 ProGPT-6.1 TerravsKimi K3.1 ProFrequently asked questions
GPT-6.1 Terra leads Mistral Small 3.1 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (MMMU-Pro). Only GPT-6.1 Terra has a verified first-party API price: $1.00 per million input tokens and $5.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Mistral Small 3.1. Mistral Small 3.1 shipped 588 days before GPT-6.1 Terra, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 128k (Mistral Small 3.1) vs 1.05M (GPT-6.1 Terra). Mistral Small 3.1 is open weight, while GPT-6.1 Terra is closed.
On MMMU-Pro, GPT-6.1 Terra leads at 85.5% vs Mistral Small 3.1 at 49.25%.