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 | 0.5B/1.5B/3B/7B/14B/32B/72B |
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 | $0.36DeepInfra |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.555Cloudflare | $0.40DeepInfra |
| $97.95Cloudflare | $92.00DeepInfra · fp8 | |
| These models have no shared benchmark scores. | ||
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% | — |
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 | Qwen |
| Release date | Mar 17 2025 | Sep 19 2024 |
| Access | Open Weight | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Mistral Small 3.1vsClaude Haiku 5.5Qwen2.5vsClaude Haiku 5.5Mistral Small 3.1vsGPT-6.1 SolQwen2.5vsGPT-6.1 SolMistral Small 3.1vsGemini 4 ArgonQwen2.5vsGemini 4 ArgonMistral Small 3.1vsMuse Spark OpenQwen2.5vsMuse Spark OpenMistral Small 3.1vsGrok 4.7Qwen2.5vsGrok 4.7Mistral Small 3.1vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Qwen2.5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Frequently asked questions
Mistral Small 3.1 and Qwen2.5 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Qwen2.5 shipped 179 days before Mistral Small 3.1, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Mistral Small 3.1 has 24B parameters, while Qwen2.5 has 0.5B/1.5B/3B/7B/14B/32B/72B. Context windows are 128k (Mistral Small 3.1) vs 128k (Qwen2.5).
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — Mistral Small 3.1 and Qwen2.5 don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.