Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Grok 4.3
79
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
95
Pick Mistral Medium 3.5 128B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok 4.3 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 1M context window.
Coding
+30.3 difference
Grok 4.3
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
$1.25 / $2.5
$1.5 / $7.5
209 t/s
N/A
12.36s
N/A
1M
256K
Pick Mistral Medium 3.5 128B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok 4.3 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 1M context window.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 95 to 79. 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 47.3.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.50 input / $7.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.25 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Grok 4.3. That is roughly 3.0x on output cost alone. Grok 4.3 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Mistral Medium 3.5 128B.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 95 to 79.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.6 versus 47.3. Grok 4.3 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.