Model comparison
GLM-4.5V vs Mistral Medium 3.1
GLM-4.5V is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 31.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Mistral AISummary
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-4.5V leads 26.5 to 10.1.
- Mistral Medium 3.1 is cheaper at $0.40 / $2 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $1.80 for GLM-4.5V.
- Mistral Medium 3.1 accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 64K.
- GLM-4.5V has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GLM-4.5V | Mistral Medium 3.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Mistral AI |
| Noometry Index | 39.2 | 31.5 |
| Released | 2025-08-11 | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 64K | 131K |
| Max output | 16K | 105K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.80 | $2 |
| Results tracked | 15 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
GLM-4.5V: 38.9 (#152), Mistral Medium 3.1: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1347 | — |
Reasoning GLM-4.5V leads
GLM-4.5V: 26.5 (#118), Mistral Medium 3.1: 10.1 (#336)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 59.8% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 6.5% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 20.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1335 | — |
Math Not comparable
GLM-4.5V: 34.7 (#157), Mistral Medium 3.1: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1353 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
GLM-4.5V: 36.8 (#155), Mistral Medium 3.1: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1353 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GLM-4.5V: 33.6 (#86), Mistral Medium 3.1: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1154 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
GLM-4.5V: 44.9 (#172), Mistral Medium 3.1: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1304 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1338 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1299 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1335 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GLM-4.5V: 69.4 (#170), Mistral Medium 3.1: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1311 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GLM-4.5V: 39.6 (#166), Mistral Medium 3.1: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1305 | — |
Writing & Preference Mistral Medium 3.1 leads
GLM-4.5V: 52.7 (#162), Mistral Medium 3.1: 55.6 (#140)
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5V | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1333 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1295 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1476 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1333 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.5V better than Mistral Medium 3.1?
GLM-4.5V is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 31.5 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, GLM-4.5V or Mistral Medium 3.1?
Mistral Medium 3.1 is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $2 per million output tokens; GLM-4.5V lists at $0.60 and $1.80.
Which has the bigger context window?
Mistral Medium 3.1 does, with 131K tokens against 64K.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.5V and Mistral Medium 3.1 share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.5V has 15 scored results on Noometry and Mistral Medium 3.1 has 3.