Model comparison
Mistral Medium 3.1 vs Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index. Mistral Medium 3.1 costs 1.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Mistral AI
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 25.0 to 10.6.
- Mistral Medium 3.1 is cheaper at $0.40 / $2 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $3.60 for Qwen3.6 27B.
- Qwen3.6 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 131K.
- Qwen3.6 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Mistral AI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.9 | 42.2 |
| Released | — | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 131K | 262K |
| Max output | 105K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.40 | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2 | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 3 | 11 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Mistral Medium 3.1: —, Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 37.3% |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 27B leads
Mistral Medium 3.1: 10.6 (#341), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 6.5% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| Thematic Generalization | 20.3% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| DTBench | — | 78.1% |
| LMCA | — | 34.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.5 |
Math Not comparable
Mistral Medium 3.1: —, Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Mistral Medium 3.1: —, Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 85.9% |
Writing & Preference Mistral Medium 3.1 leads
Mistral Medium 3.1: 55.5 (#145), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1476 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Mistral Medium 3.1 better than Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 31.9 on the Noometry Index. Mistral Medium 3.1 costs 1.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Mistral Medium 3.1 or Qwen3.6 27B?
Mistral Medium 3.1 is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $2 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B lists at $0.60 and $3.60.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 27B does, with 262K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Mistral Medium 3.1 and Qwen3.6 27B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mistral Medium 3.1 has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.