Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Nova Lite 1.0 vs Mistral Medium 3.5

Mistral Medium 3.5 leads Nova Lite 1.0 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 14.2 to 6.7, and Nova Lite 1.0 costs 31.3x less per output token ($0.24 vs $7.50 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 35 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Nova Lite 1.0 Replace Mistral Medium 3.5
Nova Lite 1.0Amazon
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.24
0
Mistral Medium 3.5Mistral AI
Coding
25.5
Overall
37.3
Output $/M
$7.50
35
vs boards won of 35 shared

Nova Lite 1.0 or Mistral Medium 3.5: which to pick

Only Mistral Medium 3.5 has a coding score, 25.5 on the Vibe Coding Index; Nova Lite 1.0 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Nova Lite 1.0 for output tokens 31.3x cheaper ($0.24 vs $7.50 per million) and a larger context window (300K against 262K tokens).

Model ANova Lite 1.0AmazonNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BMistral Medium 3.5Mistral AI25.5/1003 independent benchmarks$6.02 per solved task
Shared results
35
Nova Lite 1.0 only
6
Mistral Medium 3.5 only
46
Like-for-like categories
7 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Nova Lite 1.0 not benchmarked, Mistral Medium 3.5 25.5 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Agentic work, 76.6 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: Nova Lite 1.0 17.5% against Mistral Medium 3.5 94.2%, 76.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Nova Lite 1.0 $0.24 against Mistral Medium 3.5 $7.50 per million output tokens, 31.3x apart.
Context window
Nova Lite 1.0 takes 300K tokens, Mistral Medium 3.5 262K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryNova Lite 1.0BarsMistral Medium 3.5Ties
Coding03
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning05
Math02
Knowledge04
General019
All shared boards035
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index03
Coding benchmarks for Nova Lite 1.0 and Mistral Medium 3.5
BenchmarkNova Lite 1.0Mistral Medium 3.5Leader
LMArena WebDevNot measured1264Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
AA Coding IndexNot measured46.9Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured66.4%Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured2.9%Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured5.1%Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured39.0%Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)16.7%Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
SciCodeNot measured40.2%Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)0.8%33.3%Mistral Medium 3.5
ALE-BenchNot measured764.0Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
LMArena Text: coding12391460Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Text: software and IT12411458Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1254Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1308Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Nova Lite 1.0 and Mistral Medium 3.5
BenchmarkNova Lite 1.0Mistral Medium 3.5Leader
AA Intelligence Index6.714.2Mistral Medium 3.5
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured141.4Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Nova Lite 1.0 and Mistral Medium 3.5
BenchmarkNova Lite 1.0Mistral Medium 3.5Leader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured7.0Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured32.1%Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured4.5%Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured9.1%Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured11.2%Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom17.5%94.2%Mistral Medium 3.5
Neither model has a result on the other 35 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Reasoning benchmarks for Nova Lite 1.0 and Mistral Medium 3.5
BenchmarkNova Lite 1.0Mistral Medium 3.5Leader
GPQA DiamondNot measured34.9%Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)43.3%74.8%Mistral Medium 3.5
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)4.3%13.8%Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Text: hard prompts12201436Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Text: expert12011432Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English12261445Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1254Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1230Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
Kagi LLM BenchmarkNot measured41.4%Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Math benchmarks for Nova Lite 1.0 and Mistral Medium 3.5
BenchmarkNova Lite 1.0Mistral Medium 3.5Leader
AA Math Index7.0Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)7.0%Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
ProofBenchNot measured9.0%Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
LMArena Text: math12271431Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Text: mathematical work12351440Mistral Medium 3.5
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Knowledge benchmarks for Nova Lite 1.0 and Mistral Medium 3.5
BenchmarkNova Lite 1.0Mistral Medium 3.5Leader
MMLU ProNot measured75.3%Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured44.2%Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured58.8%Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured68.0%Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured28.9%Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured33.8%Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)59.0%Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
MMLU77.0%Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: science12321428Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare12131409Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Text: legal and government12381437Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Text: business and finance12191426Mistral Medium 3.5
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Nova Lite 1.0 and Mistral Medium 3.5
BenchmarkNova Lite 1.0Mistral Medium 3.5Leader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1142Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1079Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1079Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1120Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1061Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1121Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
Design Arena: SVGNot measured950Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured1063Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index019
General benchmarks for Nova Lite 1.0 and Mistral Medium 3.5
BenchmarkNova Lite 1.0Mistral Medium 3.5Leader
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured37.6%Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured67.7%Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
Vals Multimodal IndexNot measured34.8%Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
IFBench34.1%68.8%Mistral Medium 3.5
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)19.0%69.3%Mistral Medium 3.5
DTBenchNot measured75.5%Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
LMCANot measured26.1%Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
Surface Evolver BenchNot measured26.9%Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
LMArena Text12291421Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Text: instruction following12051415Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Text: creative writing11971374Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Vision9901222Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Text: English12431433Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Text: non-English12081404Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Text: Chinese12251444Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Text: German12291453Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Text: Japanese1153Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: Korean11531384Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Text: French12381448Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Text: Spanish12261411Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Text: Russian12161395Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1430Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn11991423Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Text: longer queries12341415Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Text: writing and language12111384Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Text: entertainment and media11761382Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Vision: English9991240Mistral Medium 3.5
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1244Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1233Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1216Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1198Only Mistral Medium 3.5 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Nova Lite 1.0 and Mistral Medium 3.5
BenchmarkNova Lite 1.0Mistral Medium 3.5Leader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Nova Lite 1.0$0.0002Fits in one request
Mistral Medium 3.5$0.0053Fits in one request

Nova Lite 1.0 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Nova Lite 1.0$0.0037Fits in one request
Mistral Medium 3.5$0.098Fits in one request

Nova Lite 1.0 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Nova Lite 1.0$0.014Fits in one request
Mistral Medium 3.5$0.375Fits in one request

Nova Lite 1.0 costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Nova Lite 1.0 and Mistral Medium 3.5
SpecificationAmazon Nova Lite 1.0Mistral Medium 3.5
MakerAmazonMistral AI
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedDecember 5, 2024April 30, 2026
Context window300K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.06$1.50
Output $/Mtok$0.24$7.50
Coding indexNot benchmarked25.5
Independent measurements behind it03
Cost per solved taskNot computable$6.02
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Nova Lite 1.0 better than Mistral Medium 3.5 for coding?

Only Mistral Medium 3.5 has a coding score, 25.5 on the Vibe Coding Index; Nova Lite 1.0 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Nova Lite 1.0 for output tokens 31.3x cheaper ($0.24 vs $7.50 per million) and a larger context window (300K against 262K tokens).

Which is cheaper, Nova Lite 1.0 or Mistral Medium 3.5?

Nova Lite 1.0 costs $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.24 per million output tokens; Mistral Medium 3.5 costs $1.50 and $7.50. Cost per solved task is known for Mistral Medium 3.5 only.

Which has the bigger context window, Nova Lite 1.0 or Mistral Medium 3.5?

Nova Lite 1.0, with 300K tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks is the Nova Lite 1.0 vs Mistral Medium 3.5 comparison based on?

35 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Nova Lite 1.0's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Mistral Medium 3.5's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next