Model comparison

Pixtral Large vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 32.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Pixtral Large Mistral AI

32.2

Rank #259 Reported

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.5

Rank #112 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 57.9 to 32.9.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Pixtral Large.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
  • Pixtral Large has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Pixtral Large and Qwen3.5-Flash specifications
Pixtral LargeQwen3.5-Flash
ProviderMistral AIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index32.242.5
Released2024-11-012026-02-23
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window128K1M
Max output128K66K
Input $ / M tokens$2$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$6$0.40
Results tracked332

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Pixtral Large: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena WebDev—1244
LMArena Coding—1412
ALE-Bench—221.8

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Pixtral Large: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.5-Flash
Vending-Bench 2—462.69

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Pixtral Large: 21.7 (#218), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.5-Flash
Chess Puzzles—21%
EnigmaEval0.8%—
LMArena Hard Prompts—1403
Mystery Game Puzzles—20%
DTBench—82.9%
LMCA—29.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.98

Math Not comparable

Pixtral Large: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.5-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

Pixtral Large: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.5-Flash
GPQA Diamond—82.3%
SimpleQA Verified—20.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%
LMArena Expert—1407

Multimodal Not comparable

Pixtral Large: 30.6 (#111), Qwen3.5-Flash: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Vision1089—

Multilingual Not comparable

Pixtral Large: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.5-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

Pixtral Large: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following—1374

Long Context Not comparable

Pixtral Large: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query—1392

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Pixtral Large: 32.9 (#278), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkPixtral LargeQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text—1397
LMArena Creative Writing—1343
EQ-Bench Creative Writing988—
LMArena Multi-Turn—1393

Frequently asked questions

Is Pixtral Large better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 32.2 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Pixtral Large 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; Pixtral Large lists at $2 and $6.

Which has the bigger context window?

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

How many benchmarks do Pixtral Large and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

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

Related comparisons

Go deeper