Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

GPT-OSS 120B vs Magistral Medium

Updated October 14, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInAPI/MCP

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. 3 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
OpenAI logo

OpenAI

36.86/100

Supported · Public rank #145

90% interval 22.9–50.8

Model B
Mistral logo

Mistral

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Shared results
3
GPT-OSS 120B only
5
Magistral Medium only
3
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8
Supported: GPT-OSS 120BHow the comparison works

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

    GPT-OSS 120B

    GPT-OSS 120B has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Magistral Medium is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited
  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    Magistral Medium is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited
  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates
  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. GPT-OSS 120B does not fit this workload in one request. Magistral Medium does not fit this workload in one request. GPT-OSS 120B has no comparable published API token rate. Magistral Medium has no comparable published API token rate.

    Confidence: listed-rates
  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Magistral Medium does not fit this workload in one request. GPT-OSS 120B has no comparable published API token rate. Magistral Medium has no comparable published API token rate.

    Confidence: listed-rates

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

23.3GPT-OSS 120B—Magistral Medium

Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8

The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Same basis rules as the category table below

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

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.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Not comparable
GPT-OSS 120B
18.9
Estimated · #106/124
Magistral Medium
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
GPT-OSS 120B
23.3
Estimated · #110/149
Magistral Medium
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
GPT-OSS 120B
61.6
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Magistral Medium
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
GPT-OSS 120B
Not ranked
Magistral Medium
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
GPT-OSS 120B
38.7
Supported · #120/181
Magistral Medium
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
GPT-OSS 120B
Not ranked
Magistral Medium
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
GPT-OSS 120B
84.3
#48/128
Magistral Medium
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
GPT-OSS 120B
Not ranked
Magistral Medium
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

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

GPT-OSS 120B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Magistral Medium
API rate not published
Fits in one request

GPT-OSS 120B has no comparable published API token rate. Magistral Medium has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

GPT-OSS 120B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Magistral Medium
API rate not published
Does not fit in one request

Magistral Medium does not fit this workload in one request. GPT-OSS 120B has no comparable published API token rate. Magistral Medium has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

GPT-OSS 120B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Does not fit in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable
Magistral Medium
API rate not published
Does not fit in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

GPT-OSS 120B does not fit this workload in one request. Magistral Medium does not fit this workload in one request. GPT-OSS 120B has no comparable published API token rate. Magistral Medium has no comparable published API token rate.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

GPT-OSS 120B

128K

Magistral Medium

40K

API model ID

GPT-OSS 120B

Not sourced

Magistral Medium

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

GPT-OSS 120B

No comparable hosted API rate

Magistral Medium

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

GPT-OSS 120B

Not sourced

Magistral Medium

Not sourced

Documented outputs

GPT-OSS 120B

Not sourced

Magistral Medium

Not sourced

Provider availability

GPT-OSS 120B

Not sourced

Magistral Medium

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

GPT-OSS 120B

Non-Reasoning

Magistral Medium

Reasoning

Weight access

GPT-OSS 120B

Open Weight

Magistral Medium

Proprietary

License

GPT-OSS 120B

Open Weight

Magistral Medium

Proprietary

Release date

GPT-OSS 120B

2025-08-05

Magistral Medium

2025-06-10

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
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
GPT-OSS 120B has the larger documented window (128K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, GPT-OSS 120B or Magistral Medium?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, GPT-OSS 120B or Magistral Medium?

Magistral Medium is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-OSS 120B or Magistral Medium?

Magistral Medium is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, GPT-OSS 120B or Magistral Medium?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, GPT-OSS 120B or Magistral Medium?

GPT-OSS 120B has the larger documented context window: 128K, compared with 40K.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence11 rows

Agentic

  • Gert Labs

    GPT-OSS 120B29.61%
    Source
    Magistral Medium—

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    GPT-OSS 120B62.4%
    Source
    Magistral Medium—

    Not directly comparable

  • React Native Evals

    GPT-OSS 120B71.6%
    Source
    Magistral Medium—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v5

    GPT-OSS 120B—
    Magistral Medium59.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v6

    GPT-OSS 120B—
    Magistral Medium50.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • MMLU

    GPT-OSS 120B90%
    Source
    Magistral Medium—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    GPT-OSS 120B80.1%
    Source
    Magistral Medium70.8%
    Source

    GPT-OSS 120B leads this result

  • HLE

    GPT-OSS 120B14.9%
    Source
    Magistral Medium—

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME 2024

    GPT-OSS 120B95.8%
    Source
    Magistral Medium73.6%
    Source

    GPT-OSS 120B leads this result

  • AIME 2025

    GPT-OSS 120B92.5%
    Source
    Magistral Medium64.9%
    Source

    GPT-OSS 120B leads this result

  • MATH-500

    GPT-OSS 120B—
    Magistral Medium94.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

11 public results · 3 shared

Watch GPT-OSS 120B vs Magistral Medium

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 5,500+ readers.

Last updated October 14, 2026