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 | 1M |
| 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. | — | $2.50 |
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 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 | $1.475Alibaba |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across every provider on OpenRouter, the lab included. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $0.555Cloudflare | $4.425Alibaba |
| $97.95Cloudflare | $516Alibaba | |
| 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% | 92.4% |
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. | — | 72% |
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | — | 60.6% |
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. | — | 80.4% |
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. | — | 91.6% |
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 2.0Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 69.7% |
MCP AtlasMulti-step tool use — Can the AI chain together many tools and steps to complete one bigger task, rather than doing just a single thing? Higher is better. | — | 76.4% |
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | — | 41.4% |
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 | May 20 2026 |
| Access | Open Weight | Closed |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
Mistral Small 3.1vsClaude Haiku 5.5Qwen3.7-MaxvsClaude Haiku 5.5Mistral Small 3.1vsGPT-6.1 SolQwen3.7-MaxvsGPT-6.1 SolMistral Small 3.1vsGemini 4 ArgonQwen3.7-MaxvsGemini 4 ArgonMistral Small 3.1vsMuse Spark OpenQwen3.7-MaxvsMuse Spark OpenMistral Small 3.1vsGrok 4.7Qwen3.7-MaxvsGrok 4.7Mistral Small 3.1vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Qwen3.7-MaxvsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Frequently asked questions
Qwen3.7-Max leads Mistral Small 3.1 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (GPQA Diamond). Only Qwen3.7-Max has a verified first-party API price: $2.50 per million input tokens and $7.50 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Mistral Small 3.1. Mistral Small 3.1 shipped 429 days before Qwen3.7-Max, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 128k (Mistral Small 3.1) vs 1M (Qwen3.7-Max). Mistral Small 3.1 is open weight, while Qwen3.7-Max is closed.
On GPQA Diamond, Qwen3.7-Max leads at 92.4% vs Mistral Small 3.1 at 45.96%.