Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Mistral Medium 3.1 vs Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct

Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct costs 2.0x less per output token than Mistral Medium 3.1 ($1.00 vs $2.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 3 benchmarks have a result for both.

Mistral Medium 3.1Mistral AI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$2.00
3
Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.00
0
vs boards won of 3 shared

Mistral Medium 3.1 or Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct: which to pick

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

Pick Mistral Medium 3.1 for a larger context window (131K against 128K tokens).

Shared results
3
Mistral Medium 3.1 only
71
Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct only
3
Like-for-like categories
1 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
Mistral Medium 3.1 not benchmarked, Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
General, 11.8 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena Vision: Chinese: Mistral Medium 3.1 1190 against Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct 1107, 13.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Mistral Medium 3.1 $2.00 against Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct $1.00 per million output tokens, 2.0x apart.
Context window
Mistral Medium 3.1 takes 131K tokens, Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct 128K.

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
CategoryMistral Medium 3.1BarsQwen2.5 VL 72B InstructTies
General30
All shared boards30
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index8 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for Mistral Medium 3.1 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMistral Medium 3.1Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
AA Coding Index20.5Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)44.8%Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)40.6%Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
SciCode32.4%Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)10.6%Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
ALE-Bench210.2Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Text: coding1433Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1436Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for Mistral Medium 3.1 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMistral Medium 3.1Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index9.2Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Mistral Medium 3.1 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMistral Medium 3.1Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
AA Agentic Index1.9Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom40.6%Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
OSWorldNot measured5.0%Only Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for Mistral Medium 3.1 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMistral Medium 3.1Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)63.0%Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)58.8%Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)4.7%Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1426Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Text: expert1408Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1435Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Vision: diagrams1175Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Vision: homework1165Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
Kagi LLM BenchmarkNot measured36.0%Only Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Mistral Medium 3.1 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMistral Medium 3.1Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
AIME42.3%Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)87.0%Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)90.9%Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
AA Math Index38.3Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)38.3%Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Text: math1408Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1412Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index12 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Mistral Medium 3.1 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMistral Medium 3.1Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro75.3%Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)62.0%Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)50.7%Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)70.3%Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)36.5%Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)78.2%Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)68.3%Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
GeoBenchNot measured62.0%Only Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: science1444Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1449Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1439Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1418Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
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 Mistral Medium 3.1 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMistral Medium 3.1Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
Design Arena: websites1132Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
Design Arena: UI components1097Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
Design Arena: game dev1073Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
Design Arena: data viz1144Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
Design Arena: 3D1081Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1120Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
Design Arena: SVG992Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art997Not measuredOnly 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 index30
General benchmarks for Mistral Medium 3.1 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMistral Medium 3.1Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
IFBench39.8%Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)42.7%Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
DTBench67.5%Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMCA19.1%Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Text1424Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1398Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1391Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Vision11721107Mistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Text: English1438Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Text: non-English1408Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1447Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Text: German1432Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1379Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1380Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Text: French1460Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1433Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Text: Russian1411Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Text: Polish1430Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1418Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1406Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1395Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1390Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Vision: English11791115Mistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Vision: Chinese11901107Mistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Vision: reading text1175Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Vision: humor1168Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Vision: captioning1145Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing things1147Not measuredOnly Mistral Medium 3.1 measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing1200Not measuredOnly 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 Mistral Medium 3.1 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkMistral Medium 3.1Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
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

Mistral Medium 3.1$0.0014Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct$0.0013Fits in one request

Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Mistral Medium 3.1$0.026Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct$0.043Fits in one request

Mistral Medium 3.1 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Mistral Medium 3.1$0.100Exceeds the context window
Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct$0.170Exceeds 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 Mistral Medium 3.1 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
SpecificationMistral Medium 3.1Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
MakerMistral AIQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedAugust 13, 2025February 1, 2025
Context window131K128K
Input $/Mtok$0.40$0.80
Output $/Mtok$2.00$1.00
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Mistral Medium 3.1 better than Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Mistral Medium 3.1 for a larger context window (131K against 128K tokens).

Which is cheaper, Mistral Medium 3.1 or Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct?

Mistral Medium 3.1 costs $0.40 per million input tokens and $2.00 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct costs $0.80 and $1.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Mistral Medium 3.1 or Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct?

Mistral Medium 3.1, with 131K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the Mistral Medium 3.1 vs Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct comparison based on?

3 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Mistral Medium 3.1's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next