Model comparison

Mistral Medium 3.1 vs Qwen3 32B

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index. Mistral Medium 3.1 costs 1.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 0 shared benchmarks.

Mistral Medium 3.1

Mistral AI

31.9

Rank #266 Reported

Qwen3 32B

Alibaba (Qwen)

39.2

Rank #172 Confirmed

Summary

The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3 32B leads 20.2 to 10.6.
Mistral Medium 3.1 is cheaper at $0.40 / $2 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 32B.
Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Mistral Medium 3.1 and Qwen3 32B specifications
	Mistral Medium 3.1	Qwen3 32B
Provider	Mistral AI	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	31.9	39.2
Released	—	2025-04
Weights	Proprietary	Open
Context window	131K	131K
Max output	105K	16K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.40	$0.70
Output $ / M tokens	$2	$2.80
Results tracked	3	26

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Mistral Medium 3.1: —, Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Mistral Medium 3.1	Qwen3 32B
Aider Polyglot	—	40%
SciCode	—	35.4%
LMArena Coding	—	1358

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Mistral Medium 3.1: —, Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Mistral Medium 3.1	Qwen3 32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	—	48.7%

Reasoning Qwen3 32B leads

Mistral Medium 3.1: 10.6 (#341), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Mistral Medium 3.1	Qwen3 32B
Kagi LLM Benchmark	—	54.9%
NYT Connections (extended)	6.5%	—
CritPt	—	0.3%
Chess Puzzles	—	5%
Thematic Generalization	20.3%	—
LMArena Hard Prompts	—	1334
DTBench	—	67.5%
LMCA	—	17.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index	—	138.51

Math Not comparable

Mistral Medium 3.1: —, Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Mistral Medium 3.1	Qwen3 32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	—	66.9%
LMArena Math	—	1399

Knowledge Not comparable

Mistral Medium 3.1: —, Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Mistral Medium 3.1	Qwen3 32B
GPQA Diamond	—	65.7%
Vectara Hallucination Rate	—	5.9%
LMArena Expert	—	1362

Multilingual Not comparable

Mistral Medium 3.1: —, Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Mistral Medium 3.1	Qwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English	—	1317
LMArena Chinese	—	1357
LMArena German	—	1341
LMArena Russian	—	1311

Instruction Following Not comparable

Mistral Medium 3.1: —, Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Mistral Medium 3.1	Qwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following	—	1305

Long Context Not comparable

Mistral Medium 3.1: —, Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Mistral Medium 3.1	Qwen3 32B
Fiction.LiveBench	—	74.2%
LMArena Longer Query	—	1327

Writing & Preference Mistral Medium 3.1 leads

Mistral Medium 3.1: 55.5 (#145), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Mistral Medium 3.1	Qwen3 32B
LMArena Text	—	1340
LMArena Creative Writing	—	1297
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	1476	—
LMArena Multi-Turn	—	1331

Frequently asked questions

Is Mistral Medium 3.1 better than Qwen3 32B?

Which is cheaper, Mistral Medium 3.1 or Qwen3 32B?

Mistral Medium 3.1 is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $2 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 131K tokens.

How many benchmarks do Mistral Medium 3.1 and Qwen3 32B share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mistral Medium 3.1 has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.