Model comparison
Mistral Medium 3.1 vs Qwen Plus
Qwen Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.1 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Mistral AI
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen Plus leads 28.4 to 10.6.
- Qwen Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $2 for Mistral Medium 3.1.
- Qwen Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
Side by side
| Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Mistral AI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.9 | 37.1 |
| Released | — | 2024-01-25 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 131K | 1M |
| Max output | 105K | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.40 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2 | $1.20 |
| Results tracked | 3 | 20 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Mistral Medium 3.1: —, Qwen Plus: 38.9 (#167)
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | — | 1328 |
Reasoning Qwen Plus leads
Mistral Medium 3.1: 10.6 (#341), Qwen Plus: 28.4 (#107)
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 63.3% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 6.5% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 20.3% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1317 |
| DTBench | — | 81.1% |
| LMCA | — | 24% |
Math Not comparable
Mistral Medium 3.1: —, Qwen Plus: 23.3 (#271)
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 17.8% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1326 |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 65.3% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 1.7% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Mistral Medium 3.1: —, Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#251)
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 48.1% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1328 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Mistral Medium 3.1: —, Qwen Plus: 45.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1310 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1347 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1251 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1323 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Mistral Medium 3.1: —, Qwen Plus: 68.8 (#181)
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1303 |
Long Context Not comparable
Mistral Medium 3.1: —, Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#158)
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1324 |
Writing & Preference Mistral Medium 3.1 leads
Mistral Medium 3.1: 55.5 (#145), Qwen Plus: 52.2 (#176)
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1326 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1293 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1476 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1336 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mistral Medium 3.1 better than Qwen Plus?
Qwen Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.1 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Mistral Medium 3.1 or Qwen Plus?
Qwen Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Mistral Medium 3.1 lists at $0.40 and $2.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen Plus does, with 1M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Mistral Medium 3.1 and Qwen Plus share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mistral Medium 3.1 has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Plus has 20.