Noometry

Model comparison

Mistral Nemo vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 26.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

Mistral Nemo Mistral AI

26.4

Rank #337 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.5

Rank #112 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Mistral Nemo scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 43.2 to 12.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 29.9% for Mistral Nemo and 82.3% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
  • Mistral Nemo is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.10 / $0.40 for Qwen3.5-Flash.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
  • Mistral Nemo has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Mistral NemoQwen3.5-Flash
ProviderMistral AIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index26.442.5
Released2024-07-012026-02-23
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window128K1M
Max output128K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.15$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$0.15$0.40
Results tracked1032

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

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

BenchmarkMistral NemoQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena WebDev—1244
LMArena Coding—1412
ALE-Bench—221.8

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Mistral Nemo: 23.5 (#125), Qwen3.5-Flash: —

BenchmarkMistral NemoQwen3.5-Flash
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard27.6%—
BALROG17.6%—
Vending-Bench 2—462.69

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Mistral Nemo: 20.7 (#232), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)

BenchmarkMistral NemoQwen3.5-Flash
DTBench48.6%82.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index118.68143.98
Chess Puzzles—21%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1403
Mystery Game Puzzles—20%
LMCA—29.1%
PIQA83.5%—

Math Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Mistral Nemo: 25.5 (#268), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)

BenchmarkMistral NemoQwen3.5-Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—18.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—84.4%
LMArena Math—1407
MATH Level 510.8%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—6.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%
GSM8K84.2%—

Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Mistral Nemo: 12.3 (#298), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)

BenchmarkMistral NemoQwen3.5-Flash
GPQA Diamond29.9%82.3%
SimpleQA Verified—20.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%
LMArena Expert—1407
BoolQ82.5%—

Multilingual Not comparable

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

BenchmarkMistral NemoQwen3.5-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 Nemo: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)

BenchmarkMistral NemoQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following—1374

Long Context Not comparable

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

BenchmarkMistral NemoQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query—1392

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Mistral Nemo: 28.5 (#296), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)

BenchmarkMistral NemoQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text—1397
LMArena Creative Writing—1343
EQ-Bench Creative Writing881—
LMArena Multi-Turn—1393

Frequently asked questions

Is Mistral Nemo better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 26.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Mistral Nemo or Qwen3.5-Flash?

Mistral Nemo is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5-Flash lists at $0.10 and $0.40.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

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

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mistral Nemo has 10 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper