Model comparison
Gemma 4 E4B vs Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 E4B #166 (Estimated); Mistral Medium 3.5 128B unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 E4B and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B share 16 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Gemma 4 E4B; 9 to Mistral Medium 3.5 128B.
Updated July 27, 2026- Shared results
- 16
- Gemma 4 E4B only
- 2
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only
- 9
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Gemma 4 E4B and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 16 shared benchmark results across 6 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.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is priced at $1.50 input / $7.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemma 4 E4B. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has the larger context window at 256K, compared with 128K for Gemma 4 E4B.
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 | Gemma 4 E4B | Δ | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Gemma 4 E4BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B77.6 |
| Knowledge | Gemma 4 E4B67.4 | MarginNo overlap | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemma 4 E4B | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 E4B$0 input / $0 output | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B$1.5 input / $7.5 output | Gemma 4 E4B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 E4BNot available | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 E4BNot available | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 E4B128K | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B256K | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 E4B | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 20.8% | 94.2% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 1.8% | 19.0% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 0.0% | 21.6% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 231 | 933 | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 91.4% | 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 |
Coding3 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 E4B | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 58.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 69.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 11.9% | 29.9% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 52.2% | 74.8% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 3.7% | 12.8% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -20.0% | -36.3% | Gemma 4 E4B leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 8.6% | 25.1% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 31.3% | 82.0% | Gemma 4 E4B leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 E4B | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 51.4% | 64.9% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 E4B | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 40.6% | 68.8% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Gemma 4 E4B and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B 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 Gemma 4 E4B and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B today?
Gemma 4 E4B: $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens Mistral Medium 3.5 128B: $1.50 input / $7.50 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
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.