Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Gemma 4 31B
64
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
78
Pick Mistral Medium 3.5 128B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 31B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Coding
+36.0 difference
Gemma 4 31B
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
$0 / $0
$1.5 / $7.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
256K
256K
Pick Mistral Medium 3.5 128B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 31B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 78 to 64. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 77.6 against 41.6.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.50 input / $7.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemma 4 31B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 78 to 64.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.6 versus 41.6. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.