Agentic
Not comparable- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Mistral Large 3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Mistral Large 3
Updated August 13, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.
0 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Mistral Large 3
Mistral Large 3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Mistral Large 3
Mistral Large 3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Gemini 3.7 Flash has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Mistral Large 3 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Mistral Large 3
Mistral Large 3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
15 Gemini 3.7 Flash only
- Shared results
- 0
- Gemini 3.7 Flash only
- 15
- Mistral Large 3 only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Coding
Not comparable- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Mistral Large 3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Mistral Large 3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Mistral Large 3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Mistral Large 3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Mistral Large 3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- 88.7
- Mistral Large 3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- Not measured
- Mistral Large 3
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.7 Flash | Mistral Large 3 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 88.7 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- $0.00262
- Fits in one request
- Mistral Large 3
- $0.00125
- Fits in one request
Mistral Large 3 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- $0.04875
- Fits in one request
- Mistral Large 3
- $0.0295
- Fits in one request
Mistral Large 3 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Gemini 3.7 Flash
- $0.2025
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Mistral Large 3
- $0.125
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Mistral Large 3 has the lower modeled cost
Gemini 3.7 Flash has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Mistral Large 3 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGemini 3.7 FlashMistral Large 3
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Mistral Large 3
256K
API model ID
Gemini 3.7 Flash
gemini-3.7-flash
Google Gemini 3.7 Flash model documentationMistral Large 3
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Not published
Google: Introducing Gemini 3.7 FlashMistral Large 3
Not published
Documented inputs
Gemini 3.7 Flash
text, image, video, audio, pdf
Google Gemini 3.7 Flash model documentationMistral Large 3
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Mistral Large 3
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Generally Available · Gemini API, Google AI Studio, Google Antigravity, Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform, Gemini Enterprise, Gemini app via Spark
Google Gemini 3.7 Flash launchMistral Large 3
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Reasoning
Mistral Large 3
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Proprietary
Mistral Large 3
Proprietary
License
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Proprietary
Mistral Large 3
Proprietary
Release date
Gemini 3.7 Flash
2026-08-13
Mistral Large 3
2025-12-02
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.04875 vs $0.0295. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.2025 vs $0.125.
- Context tradeoff
- Gemini 3.7 Flash has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Gemini 3.7 Flash
API / mo$3,375
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Mistral Large 3
API / mo$1,500
Self-host / mo$9,110
Break-even380M/day
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence15 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Gemini 3.7 Flash85.8%SourceMistral Large 3—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Gemini 3.7 Flash14.9%SourceMistral Large 3—Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
Gemini 3.7 Flash30.4%SourceMistral Large 3—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Gemini 3.7 Flash47.9%SourceMistral Large 3—Not directly comparable
Agents' Last Exam
Gemini 3.7 Flash26.3%SourceMistral Large 3—Not directly comparable
Coding
Reasoning
GDM-MRCR v2 128K average
Gemini 3.7 Flash97%SourceMistral Large 3—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
Multimodal
GDP.pdf (no tools)
Gemini 3.7 Flash34.0%SourceMistral Large 3—Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Gemini 3.7 Flash84.5%SourceMistral Large 3—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Gemini 3.7 Flash88.7%SourceMistral Large 3—Not directly comparable
LVBench
Gemini 3.7 Flash85.4%SourceMistral Large 3—Not directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.7 Flash or Mistral Large 3?
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.7 Flash or Mistral Large 3?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemini 3.7 Flash or Mistral Large 3?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Gemini 3.7 Flash or Mistral Large 3?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00263 on Gemini 3.7 Flash and $0.00125 on Mistral Large 3; repository review costs $0.04875 and $0.0295; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.2025 and $0.125. Gemini 3.7 Flash has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Mistral Large 3 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Gemini 3.7 Flash or Mistral Large 3?
Gemini 3.7 Flash has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 13, 2026
Watch Gemini 3.7 Flash vs Mistral Large 3
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.