# Mistral Nemo vs Qwen3.6 Flash

> Qwen3.6 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 26.4 on the Noometry Index. Mistral Nemo costs 2.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/mistral-nemo-vs-qwen3-6-flash
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 3

## Summary

- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Mistral Nemo scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Flash in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Flash leads 42.1 to 12.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 29.9% for Mistral Nemo and 83.3% for Qwen3.6 Flash.
- Mistral Nemo is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.19 / $1.13 for Qwen3.6 Flash.
- Qwen3.6 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
- Mistral Nemo has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Mistral Nemo | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Mistral AI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 26.4 | 38.8 |
| Rank | 337 | 182 |
| Context | 128K | 1M |
| Input $/M | $0.15 | $0.19 |
| Output $/M | $0.15 | $1.13 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Mistral Nemo: —
- Qwen3.6 Flash: —

| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| ALE-Bench | — | 326.4 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Mistral Nemo: 23.5 (#125)
- Qwen3.6 Flash: —

| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 27.6% | — |
| BALROG | 17.6% | — |

## Reasoning

- Mistral Nemo: 20.7 (#232)
- Qwen3.6 Flash: 29.0 (#96)

| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 48.6% | 77.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 118.68 | 143.26 |
| SimpleBench | — | 35.2% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 20% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 18% |
| LMCA | — | 31% |
| PIQA | 83.5% | — |

## Math

- Mistral Nemo: 25.5 (#268)
- Qwen3.6 Flash: 39.0 (#117)

| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 22.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 84.4% |
| MATH Level 5 | 10.8% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 10.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
| GSM8K | 84.2% | — |

## Knowledge

- Mistral Nemo: 12.3 (#298)
- Qwen3.6 Flash: 42.1 (#100)

| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 29.9% | 83.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 15.9% |
| BoolQ | 82.5% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Mistral Nemo: 28.5 (#296)
- Qwen3.6 Flash: —

| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 881 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Mistral Nemo better than Qwen3.6 Flash?

Qwen3.6 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 26.4 on the Noometry Index. Mistral Nemo costs 2.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Mistral Nemo or Qwen3.6 Flash?

Mistral Nemo is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Flash lists at $0.19 and $1.13.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

### How many benchmarks do Mistral Nemo and Qwen3.6 Flash share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Mistral Nemo has 10 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Flash has 13.