Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Magistral Medium

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 35.2 on the Noometry Index. Magistral Medium costs 3.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.2

Rank #20 Confirmed

Magistral Medium Mistral AI

35.2

Rank #227 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 8 categories and Magistral Medium in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 57.8 to 8.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-1: 94% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 6.1% for Magistral Medium.
  • Magistral Medium is cheaper at $2 / $5 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.6.
  • Claude Opus 4.6 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
  • Magistral Medium has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6Magistral Medium
ProviderAnthropicMistral AI
Noometry Index58.235.2
Released2026-02-042025-03-17
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M262K
Max output128K16K
Input $ / M tokens$5$2
Output $ / M tokens$25$5
Results tracked6822

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.2 (#20), Magistral Medium: 39.1 (#161)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Magistral Medium
LMArena Coding15361319
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
FrontierCode26.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%—
LMArena WebDev1547—
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
SciCode—39.2%
GSO41.2%—
WeirdML78%—
ALE-Bench996.5—
AlgoTune1.47—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), Magistral Medium: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Magistral Medium
Terminal-Bench79.8%—
APEX-Agents46.3%—
Remote Labor Index4.2%—
τ²-bench Banking27.3%—
Cybench93%—
DeepResearch Bench55.3%—
GBAEval44.1%—
LMArena Search1253—
METR Time Horizons78.9%—
Vending-Bench 28,018—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.8 (#23), Magistral Medium: 8.6 (#348)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Magistral Medium
ARC-AGI-269.2%0%
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%16.2%
ARC-AGI-194%6.1%
LMArena Hard Prompts15271267
SimpleBench67.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%—
CritPt—0.3%
Chess Puzzles17%—
EnigmaEval7.6%—
Thematic Generalization80.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
Mystery Game Puzzles25%—
DTBench91.2%—
LMCA55.8%—
Epoch Capabilities Index155.24—
ForecastBench60—

Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), Magistral Medium: 35.1 (#189)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Magistral Medium
LMArena Math15191250
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%—
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions78.5%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%—
ProofBench50%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)40.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), Magistral Medium: 33.5 (#202)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Magistral Medium
LMArena Expert15461223
GPQA Diamond90.5%—
Humanity's Last Exam34.4%—
SimpleQA Verified47%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.2%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), Magistral Medium: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Magistral Medium
LMArena Vision1316—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1507—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), Magistral Medium: 39.6 (#224)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Magistral Medium
LMArena Non-English14891232
LMArena Chinese15511227
LMArena French15131267
LMArena German15021248
LMArena Japanese14841175
LMArena Korean14641125
LMArena Russian14971224
LMArena Spanish15101271

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), Magistral Medium: 66.0 (#211)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Magistral Medium
LMArena Instruction Following15231254

Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Magistral Medium: 39.3 (#183)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Magistral Medium
LMArena Longer Query15201295
CL-bench20.7%—
CL-bench Life17%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), Magistral Medium: 46.3 (#219)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Magistral Medium
LMArena Text15031255
LMArena Creative Writing15051245
LMArena Multi-Turn15131275
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1809—
EQ-Bench 41223—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Magistral Medium?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 35.2 on the Noometry Index. Magistral Medium costs 3.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or Magistral Medium?

Magistral Medium is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $5 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Magistral Medium better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 39.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.6 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Magistral Medium share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Magistral Medium has 22.

Related comparisons

Go deeper