Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini vs Mistral Small 3.2 24B

Updated October 21, 2026. 5 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

GPT-5.1-Codex-MiniOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
20.4
Output $/M
$2.00
5
Mistral Small 3.2 24BMistral AI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.30
0
vs boards won of 5 shared

Decision reading

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini has the edge where the context window is larger, 400K against 256K tokens.

Shared results
5
GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini only
17
Mistral Small 3.2 24B only
0
Like-for-like categories
1 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

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
GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini not benchmarked, Mistral Small 3.2 24B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Web design, 23.7 points apart on average over 5 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Design Arena: websites: GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini 1111 against Mistral Small 3.2 24B 896, 26.9 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini $2.00 against Mistral Small 3.2 24B $0.30 per million output tokens, 6.7x apart.
Context window
GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini takes 400K tokens, Mistral Small 3.2 24B 256K.

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
CategoryGPT-5.1-Codex-MiniBarsMistral Small 3.2 24BTies
Web design50
All shared boards50
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index5 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini and Mistral Small 3.2 24B
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-Codex-MiniMistral Small 3.2 24BLeader
LMArena WebDev1244Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)83.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)33.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Terminal-Bench61.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1253Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini and Mistral Small 3.2 24B
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-Codex-MiniMistral Small 3.2 24BLeader
AA Intelligence Index20.4Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini and Mistral Small 3.2 24B
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-Codex-MiniMistral Small 3.2 24BLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom62.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini and Mistral Small 3.2 24B
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-Codex-MiniMistral Small 3.2 24BLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)81.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)18.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini and Mistral Small 3.2 24B
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-Codex-MiniMistral Small 3.2 24BLeader
AA Math Index91.7Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)91.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini and Mistral Small 3.2 24B
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-Codex-MiniMistral Small 3.2 24BLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)82.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Web design benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini and Mistral Small 3.2 24B
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-Codex-MiniMistral Small 3.2 24BLeader
Design Arena: websites1111896GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
Design Arena: UI components1081907GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
Design Arena: game dev1092888GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
Design Arena: data viz1096929GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
Design Arena: 3D988Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Design Arena: all code categories1094907GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini
Design Arena: SVG978Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1104Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini and Mistral Small 3.2 24B
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-Codex-MiniMistral Small 3.2 24BLeader
IFBench67.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)66.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini measured
Neither model has a result on the other 44 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini and Mistral Small 3.2 24B
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-Codex-MiniMistral Small 3.2 24BLeader
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

GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini$0.0013Fits in one request
Mistral Small 3.2 24B$0.0003Fits in one request

Mistral Small 3.2 24B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini$0.018Fits in one request
Mistral Small 3.2 24B$0.0059Fits in one request

Mistral Small 3.2 24B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini$0.070Fits in one request
Mistral Small 3.2 24B$0.023Fits in one request

Mistral Small 3.2 24B 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 GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini and Mistral Small 3.2 24B
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-5.1-Codex-MiniMistral Small 3.2 24B
MakerOpenAIMistral AI
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedNovember 13, 2025June 20, 2025
Context window400K256K
Input $/Mtok$0.25$0.10
Output $/Mtok$2.00$0.30
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it10
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini better than Mistral Small 3.2 24B for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini has the edge where the context window is larger, 400K against 256K tokens.

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini or Mistral Small 3.2 24B?

GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $2.00 per million output tokens; Mistral Small 3.2 24B costs $0.10 and $0.30. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini or Mistral Small 3.2 24B?

GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini, with 400K tokens against 256K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini vs Mistral Small 3.2 24B comparison based on?

5 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Mistral Small 3.2 24B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next