Noometry

Model comparison

Magistral Medium vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 35.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Magistral Medium Mistral AI

35.2

Rank #227 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.5

Rank #112 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Magistral Medium scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.5-Flash in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 33.7 to 8.6.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $5 for Magistral Medium.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
  • Magistral Medium has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Magistral MediumQwen3.5-Flash
ProviderMistral AIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index35.242.5
Released2025-03-172026-02-23
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window262K1M
Max output16K66K
Input $ / M tokens$2$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$5$0.40
Results tracked2232

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

Category by category

Coding Magistral Medium leads

Magistral Medium: 39.1 (#161), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)

BenchmarkMagistral MediumQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Coding13191412
LMArena WebDev—1244
SciCode39.2%—
ALE-Bench—221.8

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Magistral Medium: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —

BenchmarkMagistral MediumQwen3.5-Flash
Vending-Bench 2—462.69

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Magistral Medium: 8.6 (#348), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)

BenchmarkMagistral MediumQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts12671403
ARC-AGI-20%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark16.2%—
ARC-AGI-16.1%—
CritPt0.3%—
Chess Puzzles—21%
Mystery Game Puzzles—20%
DTBench—82.9%
LMCA—29.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.98

Math Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Magistral Medium: 35.1 (#189), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)

BenchmarkMagistral MediumQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Math12501407
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—18.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—84.4%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—6.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Magistral Medium: 33.5 (#202), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)

BenchmarkMagistral MediumQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Expert12231407
GPQA Diamond—82.3%
SimpleQA Verified—20.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%

Multilingual Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Magistral Medium: 39.6 (#224), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)

BenchmarkMagistral MediumQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English12321385
LMArena Chinese12271446
LMArena French12671412
LMArena German12481390
LMArena Japanese11751368
LMArena Korean11251344
LMArena Russian12241379
LMArena Spanish12711400

Instruction Following Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Magistral Medium: 66.0 (#211), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)

BenchmarkMagistral MediumQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following12541374

Long Context Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Magistral Medium: 39.3 (#183), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)

BenchmarkMagistral MediumQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query12951392

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Magistral Medium: 46.3 (#219), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)

BenchmarkMagistral MediumQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text12551397
LMArena Creative Writing12451343
LMArena Multi-Turn12751393

Frequently asked questions

Is Magistral Medium better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 35.2 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Magistral Medium or Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Magistral Medium lists at $2 and $5.

Is Magistral Medium or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

Magistral Medium scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.1 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do Magistral Medium and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Magistral Medium has 22 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper