Noometry

Model comparison

Mistral Small 3.1 vs Qwen3.7 Flash

Qwen3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.5 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.

Mistral Small 3.1 Mistral AI

31.4

Rank #263 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

39.5

Rank #152 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Mistral Small 3.1 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Flash in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Flash leads 48.9 to 22.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 3.9% for Mistral Small 3.1 and 86.7% for Qwen3.7 Flash.
  • Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 / $0.13 per million input/output tokens, against $0.35 / $0.56 for Mistral Small 3.1.
  • Qwen3.7 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
  • Mistral Small 3.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Mistral Small 3.1Qwen3.7 Flash
ProviderMistral AIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index31.439.5
Released2025-03-172026-07-15
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window128K1M
Max output102K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.35$0.03
Output $ / M tokens$0.56$0.13
Results tracked287

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Mistral Small 3.1: 37.7 (#175), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkMistral Small 3.1Qwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Coding1309—

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Flash leads

Mistral Small 3.1: 18.9 (#249), Qwen3.7 Flash: 27.3 (#108)

BenchmarkMistral Small 3.1Qwen3.7 Flash
Chess Puzzles1%23%
Epoch Capabilities Index127.48144.62
NYT Connections (extended)—43.8%
LMArena Hard Prompts1278—
Mystery Game Puzzles—15%

Math Qwen3.7 Flash leads

Mistral Small 3.1: 13.7 (#295), Qwen3.7 Flash: 37.3 (#100)

BenchmarkMistral Small 3.1Qwen3.7 Flash
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20253.9%86.7%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—19.3%
Omni-MATH24.8%—
LMArena Math1261—

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Flash leads

Mistral Small 3.1: 22.6 (#266), Qwen3.7 Flash: 48.9 (#69)

BenchmarkMistral Small 3.1Qwen3.7 Flash
GPQA Diamond41.9%82.3%
MMLU-Pro61%—
GPQA (HELM)39.2%—
LMArena Expert1258—

Multimodal Not comparable

Mistral Small 3.1: 32.6 (#93), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkMistral Small 3.1Qwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Vision1136—

Multilingual Not comparable

Mistral Small 3.1: 41.4 (#204), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkMistral Small 3.1Qwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Non-English1255—
LMArena Chinese1254—
LMArena French1270—
LMArena German1266—
LMArena Japanese1210—
LMArena Korean1206—
LMArena Russian1263—
LMArena Spanish1283—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Mistral Small 3.1: 63.8 (#225), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkMistral Small 3.1Qwen3.7 Flash
IFEval75%—
LMArena Instruction Following1264—

Long Context Not comparable

Mistral Small 3.1: 39.5 (#172), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkMistral Small 3.1Qwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1300—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Mistral Small 3.1: 37.2 (#254), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkMistral Small 3.1Qwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Text1278—
LMArena Creative Writing1253—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing761—
WildBench78.8%—
LMArena Multi-Turn1270—

Frequently asked questions

Is Mistral Small 3.1 better than Qwen3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.5 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Mistral Small 3.1 or Qwen3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.03 per million input tokens and $0.13 per million output tokens; Mistral Small 3.1 lists at $0.35 and $0.56.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.7 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Mistral Small 3.1 and Qwen3.7 Flash share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mistral Small 3.1 has 28 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Flash has 7.

Related comparisons

Go deeper