Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
GPT-5.2
78
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
78
Treat this as a split decision. GPT-5.2 makes more sense if you need the larger 400K context window; Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is the better fit if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Coding
+12.9 difference
GPT-5.2
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
$1.75 / $14
$1.5 / $7.5
73 t/s
N/A
130.34s
N/A
400K
256K
Treat this as a split decision. GPT-5.2 makes more sense if you need the larger 400K context window; Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is the better fit if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
GPT-5.2 and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B finish on the same provisional overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The provisional headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
GPT-5.2 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.75 input / $14.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.50 input / $7.50 output per 1M tokens for Mistral Medium 3.5 128B. GPT-5.2 gives you the larger context window at 400K, compared with 256K for Mistral Medium 3.5 128B.
GPT-5.2 and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B are tied on the provisional overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.6 versus 64.7. 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.