Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.6 vs Mistral Medium 3.1

GLM 4.6 leads Mistral Medium 3.1 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 18.5 to 9.2, at about the same output price ($2.20 vs $2.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 56 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace GLM 4.6 Replace Mistral Medium 3.1
GLM 4.6Z.ai
Coding
8.8
Overall
33.4
Output $/M
$2.20
52
Mistral Medium 3.1Mistral AI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$2.00
4
vs boards won of 56 shared

GLM 4.6 or Mistral Medium 3.1: which to pick

Only GLM 4.6 has a coding score, 8.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; Mistral Medium 3.1 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Mistral Medium 3.1 for output tokens 1.1x cheaper ($2.00 vs $2.20 per million) and work measured by MGSM (Vals AI) or TaxEval (Vals AI), where it leads.

Model AGLM 4.6Z.ai8.8/1002 independent benchmarksNo cost per solved taskModel BMistral Medium 3.1Mistral AINot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
56
GLM 4.6 only
13
Mistral Medium 3.1 only
18
Like-for-like categories
8 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
GLM 4.6 8.8 from 2 benchmarks, Mistral Medium 3.1 not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 36.3 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
AIME: GLM 4.6 92.7% against Mistral Medium 3.1 42.3%, 50.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 4.6 $2.20 against Mistral Medium 3.1 $2.00 per million output tokens, 1.1x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.6 takes 205K tokens, Mistral Medium 3.1 131K.

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
CategoryGLM 4.6BarsMistral Medium 3.1Ties
Coding70
Intelligence10
Agentic work10
Reasoning50
Math51
Knowledge82
Web design70
General181
All shared boards524
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index70
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Mistral Medium 3.1
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Mistral Medium 3.1Leader
SWE-bench Verified68.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LMArena WebDev1341Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
AA Coding Index45.820.5GLM 4.6
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)81.0%44.8%GLM 4.6
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)3.1%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)69.5%40.6%GLM 4.6
SciCodeNot measured32.4%Only Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)28.8%10.6%GLM 4.6
Terminal-Bench24.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
ALE-Bench340.8210.2GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: coding14491433GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: software and IT14551436GLM 4.6
LMArena WebDev: HTML1350Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Mistral Medium 3.1
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Mistral Medium 3.1Leader
AA Intelligence Index18.59.2GLM 4.6
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Mistral Medium 3.1
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Mistral Medium 3.1Leader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured1.9Only Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps1029Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1096Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android apps1084Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot games1180Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom76.9%40.6%GLM 4.6
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)72.4%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
BrowseComp-Plus48.2%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Mistral Medium 3.1
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Mistral Medium 3.1Leader
GPQA Diamond74.5%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured63.0%Only Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)78.0%58.8%GLM 4.6
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)14.5%4.7%GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: hard prompts14401426GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: expert14321408GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14451435GLM 4.6
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1175Only Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1165Only Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark45.7%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.6 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index51
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Mistral Medium 3.1
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Mistral Medium 3.1Leader
AIME92.7%42.3%GLM 4.6
MATH 500 (Vals AI)Not measured87.0%Only Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)89.8%90.9%Mistral Medium 3.1
AA Math Index86.038.3GLM 4.6
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)86.0%38.3%GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: math14321408GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: mathematical work14471412GLM 4.6
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index82
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Mistral Medium 3.1
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Mistral Medium 3.1Leader
MMLU Pro82.2%75.3%GLM 4.6
LegalBench (Vals AI)79.6%62.0%GLM 4.6
CorpFin (Vals AI)56.8%50.7%GLM 4.6
TaxEval (Vals AI)66.2%70.3%Mistral Medium 3.1
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured36.5%Only Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)92.2%78.2%GLM 4.6
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)82.9%68.3%GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: science14561444GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14551449GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: legal and government14481439GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: business and finance14161418Mistral Medium 3.1
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index70
Web design benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Mistral Medium 3.1
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Mistral Medium 3.1Leader
Design Arena: websites11741133GLM 4.6
Design Arena: UI components11481100GLM 4.6
Design Arena: game dev11511074GLM 4.6
Design Arena: data viz11611144GLM 4.6
Design Arena: 3D11291081GLM 4.6
Design Arena: all code categories11661120GLM 4.6
Design Arena: SVG1109993GLM 4.6
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured997Only Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index181
General benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Mistral Medium 3.1
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Mistral Medium 3.1Leader
IFBench43.4%39.8%GLM 4.6
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)54.0%42.7%GLM 4.6
DTBenchNot measured67.5%Only Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMCANot measured19.1%Only Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Text14401424GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: instruction following14101398GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: creative writing14121391GLM 4.6
LMArena VisionNot measured1172Only Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Text: English14491438GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: non-English14261408GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: Chinese14991447GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: German14471432GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: Japanese13931379GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: Korean14001380GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: French14591460Mistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Text: Spanish14361433GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: Russian14181411GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: Polish14471430GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: multi-turn14271418GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: longer queries14221406GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: writing and language14151395GLM 4.6
LMArena Text: entertainment and media14091390GLM 4.6
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1179Only Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1190Only Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1175Only Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1168Only Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Vision: captioningNot measured1145Only Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing thingsNot measured1147Only Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1200Only Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 4.6 and Mistral Medium 3.1
BenchmarkGLM 4.6Mistral Medium 3.1Leader
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

GLM 4.6$0.0017Fits in one request
Mistral Medium 3.1$0.0014Fits in one request

Mistral Medium 3.1 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 4.6$0.037Fits in one request
Mistral Medium 3.1$0.026Fits in one request

Mistral Medium 3.1 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 4.6$0.142Exceeds the context window
Mistral Medium 3.1$0.100Exceeds the context window

Mistral Medium 3.1 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 GLM 4.6 and Mistral Medium 3.1
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.6Mistral Medium 3.1
MakerZ.aiMistral AI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedSeptember 30, 2025August 13, 2025
Context window205K131K
Input $/Mtok$0.60$0.40
Output $/Mtok$2.20$2.00
Coding index8.8Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it20
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.6 better than Mistral Medium 3.1 for coding?

Only GLM 4.6 has a coding score, 8.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; Mistral Medium 3.1 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Mistral Medium 3.1 for output tokens 1.1x cheaper ($2.00 vs $2.20 per million) and work measured by MGSM (Vals AI) or TaxEval (Vals AI), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.6 or Mistral Medium 3.1?

GLM 4.6 costs $0.60 per million input tokens and $2.20 per million output tokens; Mistral Medium 3.1 costs $0.40 and $2.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GLM 4.6 or Mistral Medium 3.1?

GLM 4.6, with 205K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.6 vs Mistral Medium 3.1 comparison based on?

56 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GLM 4.6's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Mistral Medium 3.1's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next