Model comparison

Mistral Medium 3.1 vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Mistral Medium 3.1 Mistral AI

31.9

Rank #266 Reported

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.5

Rank #112 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 33.7 to 10.6.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $2 for Mistral Medium 3.1.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

Mistral Medium 3.1 and Qwen3.5-Flash specifications
Mistral Medium 3.1Qwen3.5-Flash
ProviderMistral AIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index31.942.5
Released—2026-02-23
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window131K1M
Max output105K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.40$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$2$0.40
Results tracked332

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Mistral Medium 3.1: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMistral Medium 3.1Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena WebDev—1244
LMArena Coding—1412
ALE-Bench—221.8

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Mistral Medium 3.1: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkMistral Medium 3.1Qwen3.5-Flash
Vending-Bench 2—462.69

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Mistral Medium 3.1: 10.6 (#341), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMistral Medium 3.1Qwen3.5-Flash
NYT Connections (extended)6.5%—
Chess Puzzles—21%
Thematic Generalization20.3%—
LMArena Hard Prompts—1403
Mystery Game Puzzles—20%
DTBench—82.9%
LMCA—29.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.98

Math Not comparable

Mistral Medium 3.1: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMistral Medium 3.1Qwen3.5-Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—18.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—84.4%
LMArena Math—1407
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—6.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Not comparable

Mistral Medium 3.1: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMistral Medium 3.1Qwen3.5-Flash
GPQA Diamond—82.3%
SimpleQA Verified—20.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%
LMArena Expert—1407

Multilingual Not comparable

Mistral Medium 3.1: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMistral Medium 3.1Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English—1385
LMArena Chinese—1446
LMArena French—1412
LMArena German—1390
LMArena Japanese—1368
LMArena Korean—1344
LMArena Russian—1379
LMArena Spanish—1400

Instruction Following Not comparable

Mistral Medium 3.1: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMistral Medium 3.1Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following—1374

Long Context Not comparable

Mistral Medium 3.1: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMistral Medium 3.1Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query—1392

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Mistral Medium 3.1: 55.5 (#145), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMistral Medium 3.1Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text—1397
LMArena Creative Writing—1343
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1476—
LMArena Multi-Turn—1393

Frequently asked questions

Is Mistral Medium 3.1 better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Mistral Medium 3.1 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; Mistral Medium 3.1 lists at $0.40 and $2.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Mistral Medium 3.1 and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mistral Medium 3.1 has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper