Mistral Nemo vs Qwen3.8 Flash
Updated October 21, 2026. No benchmark has tested both models yet. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.15
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.47
Decision reading
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Mistral Nemo has the edge where output tokens cost 3.1x less.
No benchmark has tested both yet. Mistral Nemo has results on Epoch Capabilities Index, MMLU and DTBench; Qwen3.8 Flash on LiveBench coding, LiveBench research and LiveBench browser. Compare them on price and context instead.
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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen3.8 Flash
Qwen3.8 Flash takes 1M tokens against 131K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Mistral Nemo
Mistral Nemo $0.0002, Qwen3.8 Flash $0.0004 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Mistral Nemo not benchmarked, Qwen3.8 Flash not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
- Widest single gap
- None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
- Output price
- Mistral Nemo $0.15 against Qwen3.8 Flash $0.47 per million output tokens, 3.1x apart.
- Context window
- Mistral Nemo takes 131K tokens, Qwen3.8 Flash 1M.
Benchmark by benchmark
Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen3.8 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench coding | Not measured | 87.4% | Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen3.8 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 118.7 | Not measured | Only Mistral Nemo 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 measured
| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen3.8 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench research | Not measured | 74.6% | Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured |
| LiveBench browser | Not measured | 48.0% | Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured |
| LiveBench long agentic | Not measured | 37.1% | Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen3.8 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench reasoning | Not measured | 87.4% | Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen3.8 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 65.3% | Not measured | Only Mistral Nemo measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen3.8 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench design | Not measured | 72.8% | Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
| Benchmark | Mistral Nemo | Qwen3.8 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench data analysis | Not measured | 74.2% | Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured |
| DTBench | 48.6% | Not measured | Only Mistral Nemo measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 44 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 Nemo costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Mistral Nemo costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
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.
| Specification | Mistral Nemo | Qwen3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Mistral AI | Qwen |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | July 19, 2024 | August 26, 2026 |
| Context window | 131K | 1M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.15 | $0.15 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.15 | $0.47 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 1 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Mistral Nemo better than Qwen3.8 Flash for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Mistral Nemo has the edge where output tokens cost 3.1x less.
Which is cheaper, Mistral Nemo or Qwen3.8 Flash?
Mistral Nemo costs $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 Flash costs $0.15 and $0.47. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Mistral Nemo or Qwen3.8 Flash?
Qwen3.8 Flash, with 1M tokens against 131K.
Has any benchmark tested both Mistral Nemo and Qwen3.8 Flash?
No benchmark has tested both yet. Mistral Nemo has results on Epoch Capabilities Index, MMLU and DTBench; Qwen3.8 Flash on LiveBench coding, LiveBench research and LiveBench browser. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 21, 2026.