Mistral Medium 3.1 vs Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 Instruct: The Ultimate Performance & Pricing Comparison

Deep dive into reasoning, benchmarks, and latency insights.

The Final Verdict in the Mistral Medium 3.1 vs Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 Instruct Showdown

After a comprehensive analysis, Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 Instruct emerges as the superior choice for users prioritizing raw intelligence and reasoning. However, Mistral Medium 3.1 remains a highly competitive option, especially for scenarios demanding faster response times and cost-efficiency. This detailed Mistral Medium 3.1 vs Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 Instruct comparison will break down every critical metric to help you make the best decision.

Explore best-for scenarios•Let the AI Selector recommend next steps

Model Snapshot

Key decision metrics at a glance.

Mistral Medium 3.1

Mistral

Reasoning: 4
Coding: 2
Multimodal: 2
Long Context: 3
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.001
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: 94.786tokens/sec

Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 Instruct

Other

Reasoning: 7
Coding: 2
Multimodal: 2
Long Context: 3
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.001
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: 45.545tokens/sec

Overall Capabilities

The capability radar provides a holistic view of the Mistral Medium 3.1 vs Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 Instruct matchup. This chart illustrates each model's strengths and weaknesses at a glance, forming a cornerstone of our Mistral Medium 3.1 vs Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 Instruct analysis.

This radar chart visually maps the core capabilities (reasoning, coding, math proxy, multimodal, long context) of `Mistral Medium 3.1` vs `Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 Instruct`.

Benchmark Breakdown

For a granular look, this chart directly compares scores across standardized benchmarks. In the critical MMLU Pro test, a key part of the Mistral Medium 3.1 vs Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 Instruct debate, Mistral Medium 3.1 scores 40 against Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 Instruct's 70. This data-driven approach is essential for any serious Mistral Medium 3.1 vs Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 Instruct comparison.

This grouped bar chart provides a side-by-side comparison for each benchmark metric.

Speed & Latency

Speed is a crucial factor in the Mistral Medium 3.1 vs Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 Instruct decision for interactive applications. The metrics below highlight the trade-offs you should weigh before shipping to production.

Time to First Token

Mistral Medium 3.1300ms

Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 Instruct300ms

Tokens per Second

Mistral Medium 3.194.786

Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 Instruct45.545

Head to the playground to validate these results yourself

The Economics of Mistral Medium 3.1 vs Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 Instruct

Power is only one part of the equation. This Mistral Medium 3.1 vs Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 Instruct pricing analysis gives you a true sense of value.

Pricing Breakdown

Compare input and output pricing at a glance.

Real-World Cost Scenario

To process 1M input tokens and generate 250k output tokens, Mistral Medium 3.1 would cost $0.001, whereas Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 Instruct would cost $0.001. This practical calculation is vital for any developer considering the Mistral Medium 3.1 vs Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 Instruct choice.

Review the complete pricing and packaging strategy

Which Model Wins the Mistral Medium 3.1 vs Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 Instruct Battle for You?

Choose Mistral Medium 3.1 if...

You need the most advanced reasoning capabilities available.

Your use case demands cutting-edge AI performance.

Choose Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 Instruct if...

You are developing at scale where operational costs are critical.

You prioritize cost-effectiveness over maximum performance.

Your workload requires consistent, reliable performance.

Explore all Best picks Use the AI Selector for a tailored recommendation

Your Questions about the Mistral Medium 3.1 vs Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 Instruct Comparison

Review the full evaluation methodology · Read the latest analysis posts

Data source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/