Model comparison

Pixtral Large vs Qwen3.5 35B-A3B

Qwen3.5 35B-A3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 31.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Pixtral Large Mistral AI

31.7

Rank #257 Reported

Qwen3.5 35B-A3B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.7

Rank #118 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.5 35B-A3B leads 58.1 to 32.9.
  • Qwen3.5 35B-A3B is cheaper at $0.25 / $2 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Pixtral Large.
  • Qwen3.5 35B-A3B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Pixtral Large and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B specifications
Pixtral LargeQwen3.5 35B-A3B
ProviderMistral AIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index31.741.7
Released2024-11-012026-02-01
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K262K
Max output128K66K
Input $ / M tokens$2$0.25
Output $ / M tokens$6$2
Results tracked328

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Pixtral Large: —, Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 33.5 (#244)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena WebDev—1254
SciCode—29.3%
LMArena Coding—1410

Reasoning Qwen3.5 35B-A3B leads

Pixtral Large: 20.9 (#208), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 23.9 (#158)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.5 35B-A3B
CritPt—0.6%
Chess Puzzles—10%
EnigmaEval0.8%—
LMArena Hard Prompts—1400
DTBench—80%
LMCA—29.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index—142.52

Math Not comparable

Pixtral Large: —, Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 38.4 (#86)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.5 35B-A3B
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—70%
LMArena Math—1404

Knowledge Not comparable

Pixtral Large: —, Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 47.7 (#73)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.5 35B-A3B
GPQA Diamond—83.5%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%
LMArena Expert—1408

Multimodal Not comparable

Pixtral Large: 30.0 (#105), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Vision1089—

Multilingual Not comparable

Pixtral Large: —, Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 50.2 (#122)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Non-English—1379
LMArena Chinese—1458
LMArena French—1412
LMArena German—1367
LMArena Japanese—1326
LMArena Korean—1354
LMArena Russian—1377
LMArena Spanish—1390

Instruction Following Not comparable

Pixtral Large: —, Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 73.0 (#123)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Instruction Following—1379

Long Context Not comparable

Pixtral Large: —, Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 42.4 (#122)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Longer Query—1390

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5 35B-A3B leads

Pixtral Large: 32.9 (#273), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 58.1 (#118)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.5 35B-A3B
LMArena Text—1395
LMArena Creative Writing—1347
EQ-Bench Creative Writing988—
LMArena Multi-Turn—1391

Frequently asked questions

Is Pixtral Large better than Qwen3.5 35B-A3B?

Qwen3.5 35B-A3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.7 to 31.7 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Pixtral Large or Qwen3.5 35B-A3B?

Qwen3.5 35B-A3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $2 per million output tokens; Pixtral Large lists at $2 and $6.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5 35B-A3B does, with 262K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Pixtral Large and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Pixtral Large has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper