Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-5.1 vs Mistral Nemo

Updated October 21, 2026. 2 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

GPT-5.1OpenAI
Coding
40.4
Overall
24.7
Output $/M
$10.00
2
Mistral NemoMistral AI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.15
0
vs boards won of 2 shared

Decision reading

Only GPT-5.1 has a coding score, 40.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; Mistral Nemo has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Mistral Nemo has the edge where output tokens cost 66.7x less.

Shared results
2
GPT-5.1 only
98
Mistral Nemo only
1
Like-for-like categories
2 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 40.4 from 3 benchmarks, Mistral Nemo not benchmarked.
Widest category
General, 41.5 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
DTBench: GPT-5.1 90.1% against Mistral Nemo 48.6%, 41.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-5.1 $10.00 against Mistral Nemo $0.15 per million output tokens, 66.7x apart.
Context window
GPT-5.1 takes 400K tokens, Mistral Nemo 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
CategoryGPT-5.1BarsMistral NemoTies
Intelligence10
General10
All shared boards20
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index16 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for GPT-5.1 and Mistral Nemo
BenchmarkGPT-5.1Mistral NemoLeader
SWE-bench Verified66.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena WebDev1396Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
AA Coding Index49.4Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)86.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)69.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)24.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)86.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)45.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Terminal-Bench47.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
GSO-Bench13.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
WeirdML60.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: coding1453Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1454Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena WebDev: React1307Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1405Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena WebDev: from an image1421Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-5.1 and Mistral Nemo
BenchmarkGPT-5.1Mistral NemoLeader
AA Intelligence Index24.7Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Epoch Capabilities Index149.8118.7GPT-5.1
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-5.1 and Mistral Nemo
BenchmarkGPT-5.1Mistral NemoLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom81.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
DeepResearch Bench42.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Vending-Bench 2$1,473Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index16 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-5.1 and Mistral Nemo
BenchmarkGPT-5.1Mistral NemoLeader
GPQA Diamond86.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)83.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)87.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)28.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)87.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
ARC-AGI72.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
ARC-AGI-217.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
SimpleBench53.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Chess puzzles42.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Mystery game puzzles19.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
VPCT58.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1457Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: expert1470Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1462Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Vision: diagrams1264Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Vision: homework1272Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GPT-5.1 and Mistral Nemo
BenchmarkGPT-5.1Mistral NemoLeader
AIME93.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)93.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
AA Math Index94.0Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)94.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
OTIS Mock AIME88.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: math1446Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1449Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index15 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-5.1 and Mistral Nemo
BenchmarkGPT-5.1Mistral NemoLeader
MMLU Pro86.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)85.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)73.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)63.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)74.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)61.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)96.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)52.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)87.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
SimpleQA Verified48.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
MMLUNot measured65.3%Only Mistral Nemo measured
LMArena Text: science1459Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1456Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1459Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1431Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GPT-5.1 and Mistral Nemo
BenchmarkGPT-5.1Mistral NemoLeader
Design Arena: websites1187Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Design Arena: UI components1166Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Design Arena: game dev1179Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Design Arena: data viz1204Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Design Arena: 3D1061Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1171Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Design Arena: SVG1149Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1118Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
General benchmarks for GPT-5.1 and Mistral Nemo
BenchmarkGPT-5.1Mistral NemoLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)43.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)88.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
IFBench72.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)80.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
DTBench90.1%48.6%GPT-5.1
LMCA43.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
CL-bench23.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
CL-bench Life17.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text1443Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1443Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1427Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Vision1250Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: English1451Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: non-English1431Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1495Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: German1438Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1453Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1401Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: French1450Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1433Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: Russian1435Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: Polish1440Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1450Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1448Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1428Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1415Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Vision: English1252Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Vision: Chinese1270Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Vision: reading text1255Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Vision: humor1263Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Vision: captioning1252Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing things1232Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing1266Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
LMArena Document1403Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-5.1 and Mistral Nemo
BenchmarkGPT-5.1Mistral NemoLeader
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$0.0063Fits in one request
Mistral Nemo$0.0002Fits in one request

Mistral Nemo costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-5.1$0.092Fits in one request
Mistral Nemo$0.0080Fits in one request

Mistral Nemo costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-5.1$0.350Fits in one request
Mistral Nemo$0.032Exceeds the context window

Mistral Nemo 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 and Mistral Nemo
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-5.1Mistral Nemo
MakerOpenAIMistral AI
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedNovember 13, 2025July 19, 2024
Context window400K131K
Input $/Mtok$1.25$0.15
Output $/Mtok$10.00$0.15
Coding index40.4Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it30
Cost per solved task$1.02Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-5.1 better than Mistral Nemo for coding?

Only GPT-5.1 has a coding score, 40.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; Mistral Nemo has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Mistral Nemo has the edge where output tokens cost 66.7x less.

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.1 or Mistral Nemo?

GPT-5.1 costs $1.25 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; Mistral Nemo costs $0.15 and $0.15. Cost per solved task is known for GPT-5.1 only.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-5.1 or Mistral Nemo?

GPT-5.1, with 400K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-5.1 vs Mistral Nemo comparison based on?

2 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-5.1's coding index rests on 3 independent benchmarks and Mistral Nemo's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next