Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Mistral Small 4
Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 5 #1 (Estimated); Mistral Small 4 #147 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 5 and Mistral Small 4 share 14 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 65 results are unique to Claude Opus 5; 2 to Mistral Small 4.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 65
- Mistral Small 4 only
- 2
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Claude Opus 5 and Mistral Small 4 is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.
Claude Opus 5 is priced at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.15 input / $0.60 output per 1M tokens for Mistral Small 4.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude Opus 5 | Δ | Mistral Small 4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Opus 590.8 | MarginNo overlap | Mistral Small 4Not measured |
| Coding | Claude Opus 589.5 | MarginNo overlap | Mistral Small 4Not measured |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 590.4 | MarginNo overlap | Mistral Small 4Not measured |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 564.7 | MarginNo overlap | Mistral Small 4Not measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 566.9 | MarginNo overlap | Mistral Small 4Not measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 | Mistral Small 4 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 5$5 input / $25 output | Mistral Small 4$0.15 input / $0.6 output | Mistral Small 4 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 5Not available | Mistral Small 4175 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 5Not available | Mistral Small 40.64 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 5Not available | Mistral Small 4256K | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic25 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Mistral Small 4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierBench v0.1Source | 43.3% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 90.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 95.0% | — | Not comparable |
| DRACOSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)Source | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 85.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP-Atlas claim coverageSource | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 23.58% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 93.74% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 11.7% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 94.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1861 | 592 | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| Toolathlon-VerifiedSource | 80.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass@3Source | 87.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass³Source | 73.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified avg. turnsSource | 23.5 turns | — | Not comparable |
| AutomationBenchSource | 26.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 55.3% | 4.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 68.0% | 4.6% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 30.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1720 | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 41.2% | Not comparable |
Coding12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Mistral Small 4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 96% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 79.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 89.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultimodalSource | 59.4% | — | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | 68.8% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 53.4% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource | 63.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBench (episode 1)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBenchSource | 93.0% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 70.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 78.0% | 26.6% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 55.7% | 38.0% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
Reasoning5 benchmarks
Knowledge21 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Mistral Small 4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 56.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (raw)Source | 67.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (length-adjusted)Source | 57.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | 59.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench Professional (raw)Source | 73.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)Source | 90.1% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)Source | 49.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SpatialBench VerifiedSource | 72.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SingleCellBenchSource | 60.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProteinGym HardSource | 47.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Protein DesignSource | 42.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Organic chemistry V2Source | 61.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (troubleshooting)Source | 61.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (understanding)Source | 78.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 60.7% | 19.6% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 93.2% | 76.9% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 52.6% | 9.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 31.3% | -29.9% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 54.2% | 22.1% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 50.1% | 66.8% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
Math5 benchmarks
Multilingual3 benchmarks
Multimodal9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Mistral Small 4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chartography (no tools)Source | 29.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Chartography (tools)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)Source | 0.366 | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)Source | 0.821 | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (no tools)Source | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (tools)Source | 85.5% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQASource | 78.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | 66.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 84.7% | 56.8% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Mistral Small 4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 48.2% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Claude Opus 5 and Mistral Small 4 on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Claude Opus 5 and Mistral Small 4 today?
Claude Opus 5: $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens Mistral Small 4: $0.15 input / $0.60 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.