Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Mixtral 8x22B
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index. Mixtral 8x22B costs 3.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.
Mistral AISummary
- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5 scores higher in 9 categories and Mixtral 8x22B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 5 leads 86.2 to 22.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 91.8% for Claude Opus 5 and 3.2% for Mixtral 8x22B.
- Mixtral 8x22B is cheaper at $2 / $6 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 5.
- Claude Opus 5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 64K.
- Mixtral 8x22B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 5 | Mixtral 8x22B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Mistral AI |
| Noometry Index | 67.8 | 27.1 |
| Released | 2026-07-24 | 2024-04-17 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 64K |
| Max output | 128K | 64K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $2 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $6 |
| Results tracked | 57 | 34 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 67.5 (#5), Mixtral 8x22B: 24.2 (#329)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Mixtral 8x22B |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 91.8% | 3.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1534 | 1166 |
| DeepSWE | 73.6% | — |
| FrontierCode | 53.4% | — |
| CursorBench | 46.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1691 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 52% | — |
| SciCode | 56.4% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 40.6% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 50.2% |
| ALE-Bench | 2,165 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 72% |
| MBPP+ | — | 64.3% |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 55.6 (#1), Mixtral 8x22B: 23.1 (#127)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Mixtral 8x22B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 65.8% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 31.4% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 48.7% | — |
| Cybench | — | 7.5% |
| PostTrainBench | 35% | — |
| BALROG | 63.4% | — |
| GBAEval | 79.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 11,182 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 77.2 (#4), Mixtral 8x22B: 19.9 (#248)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Mixtral 8x22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1150 |
| DTBench | 97.9% | 55.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.78 | 122.03 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.4% | — |
| SimpleBench | 80.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 94.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 29.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 42% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 45.7% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 59% | — |
| LMCA | 64.5% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.12 | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 56.3 |
Math Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 86.2 (#8), Mixtral 8x22B: 22.9 (#275)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Mixtral 8x22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1531 | 1184 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 85.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 73.2% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.9% | — |
| ProofBench | 99% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 16.3% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 24.2% |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 66.8 (#9), Mixtral 8x22B: 15.1 (#293)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Mixtral 8x22B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.9% | 34.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1557 | 1113 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 59.9% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 46% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 33.4% |
| MMLU | — | 77.8% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 50.8 (#8), Mixtral 8x22B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Mixtral 8x22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1319 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 30.4% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 60.8% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1516 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 58.8 (#4), Mixtral 8x22B: 32.8 (#255)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Mixtral 8x22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1501 | 1128 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1574 | 1116 |
| LMArena French | 1519 | 1166 |
| LMArena German | 1524 | 1141 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1516 | 1037 |
| LMArena Korean | 1521 | 1057 |
| LMArena Russian | 1507 | 1158 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1519 | 1151 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#7), Mixtral 8x22B: 57.7 (#266)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Mixtral 8x22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1147 |
| IFEval | — | 72.4% |
Long Context Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 46.5 (#21), Mixtral 8x22B: 34.7 (#247)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Mixtral 8x22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1515 | 1144 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#1), Mixtral 8x22B: 36.9 (#262)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Mixtral 8x22B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1507 | 1162 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1491 | 1141 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | 1130 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2133 | — |
| WildBench | — | 71.1% |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1385 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5 better than Mixtral 8x22B?
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index. Mixtral 8x22B costs 3.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5 or Mixtral 8x22B?
Mixtral 8x22B is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 5 lists at $5 and $25.
Is Claude Opus 5 or Mixtral 8x22B better for coding?
Claude Opus 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.5 versus 24.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Opus 5 does, with 1M tokens against 64K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5 and Mixtral 8x22B share?
21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5 has 57 scored results on Noometry and Mixtral 8x22B has 34.