Model comparison
Composer 2 vs Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Evidence parity. Composer 2 and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 5 results are unique to Composer 2; 25 to Mistral Medium 3.5 128B.
Updated July 27, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- Composer 2 only
- 5
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only
- 25
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Composer 2 makes more sense if you want the cheaper token bill; Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is the better fit if coding is the priority or you need the larger 256K context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Composer 2 and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.50 input / $7.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.50 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Composer 2. That is roughly 3.0x on output cost alone. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for Composer 2.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Composer 2 | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Composer 2$0.5 input / $2.5 output | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B$1.5 input / $7.5 output | Composer 2 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Composer 2Not available | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Composer 2Not available | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Composer 2200K | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B256K | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2 | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 61.7% | — | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 91.4% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 19.0% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 94.2% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 21.6% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 933 | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 39.10% | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 33.7% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 69.1% | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 516 | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 14.4% | Not comparable |
CodingMistral Medium 3.5 128B wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2 | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE MultilingualSource | 73.7% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 58% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 96.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 61.7% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 77.6% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 46.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 39.6% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2 | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 29.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 74.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 12.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -36.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 25.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 82.0% | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2 | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 64.9% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Composer 2 | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 68.8% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Composer 2 or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
Composer 2 and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for coding, Composer 2 or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.6 versus 58. Composer 2 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Know when it’s worth switching models
The model to choose, the cheaper alternative, and the release we would wait on.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.