Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Mistral Large 4
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 43.1 on the Noometry Index. Mistral Large 4 costs 3.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 5 categories and Mistral Large 4 in 3 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 56.0 to 36.6.
- Mistral Large 4 is cheaper at $0.68 / $2.09 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $10 for Gemini 2.5 Pro.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | Mistral Large 4 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Mistral AI | |
| Noometry Index | 45.0 | 43.1 |
| Released | 2025-03-25 | 2026-10-06 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1.05M |
| Max output | 66K | 262K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | $0.68 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $2.09 |
| Results tracked | 78 | 15 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Mistral Large 4 leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 42.4 (#101), Mistral Large 4: 48.6 (#57)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Mistral Large 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1227 | 1541 |
| LMArena Coding | 1452 | 1475 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 57.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 53.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 83.1% | — |
| SciCode | 42.8% | — |
| GSO | 3.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 54% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 85.9% | — |
| CadEval | 64% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 785.52 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.51 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 29.2 (#88), Mistral Large 4: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Mistral Large 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 32.6% | — |
| GDPval | 23.3% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 0.8% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 30.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 13.7% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 42.8% | — |
| BALROG | 43.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1142 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 55.4% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 573.64 | — |
Reasoning Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 28.8 (#99), Mistral Large 4: 22.5 (#192)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Mistral Large 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1455 | 1444 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 4.9% | — |
| SimpleBench | 62.4% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 70.3% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 27.4% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 41% | — |
| CritPt | 2% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 20% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 89.8% | — |
| DTBench | 82.4% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 79.9% | — |
| LMCA | 34.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.32 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.3 | — |
| LiveBench | 82.3% | — |
Math Mistral Large 4 leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 32.5 (#213), Mistral Large 4: 40.4 (#91)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Mistral Large 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1450 | 1488 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 24.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 0% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 84.7% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 41.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 90.2% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 95.9% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 14.1% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 56.0 (#46), Mistral Large 4: 36.6 (#166)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Mistral Large 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1452 | 1447 |
| GPQA Diamond | 85.3% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 21.6% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 20% |
| MMLU-Pro | 86.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 10.6% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 74.9% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 45.2 (#18), Mistral Large 4: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Mistral Large 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
| GeoBench | 86% | — |
| VPCT | 48% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1421 | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 44.7% | — |
Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.3 (#31), Mistral Large 4: 52.6 (#82)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Mistral Large 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1451 | 1415 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1491 |
| LMArena Russian | 1461 | 1414 |
| LMArena French | 1472 | — |
| LMArena German | 1487 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1461 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1434 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1473 | — |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.0 (#75), Mistral Large 4: 75.0 (#76)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Mistral Large 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1437 | 1424 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 80.6% | — |
| IFEval | 84% | — |
Long Context Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.8 (#5), Mistral Large 4: 43.6 (#89)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Mistral Large 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1449 | 1429 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 91.7% | — |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.7 (#62), Mistral Large 4: 60.4 (#97)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Mistral Large 4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1458 | 1427 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1361 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1453 | 1424 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.8% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1421 | — |
| WildBench | 85.7% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 67.8% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Pro better than Mistral Large 4?
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 43.1 on the Noometry Index. Mistral Large 4 costs 3.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Mistral Large 4?
Mistral Large 4 is cheaper. It lists at $0.68 per million input tokens and $2.09 per million output tokens; Gemini 2.5 Pro lists at $1.25 and $10.
Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or Mistral Large 4 better for coding?
Mistral Large 4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.6 versus 42.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1.05M tokens.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Pro and Mistral Large 4 share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Mistral Large 4 has 15.