Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)
86
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
78
Verified leaderboard positions: DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) #6 · Mistral Medium 3.5 128B unranked
Pick DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
Coding
+1.7 difference
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max)
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
$1.74 / $3.48
$1.5 / $7.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
256K
Pick DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 86 to 78. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.50 input / $7.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.74 input / $3.48 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max). That is roughly 2.2x on output cost alone. DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Mistral Medium 3.5 128B.
DeepSeek V4 Pro (Max) is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 86 to 78. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 80.6% and 77.6%.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.6 versus 75.9. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.