Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Grok Code Fast 1
Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Grok Code Fast 1 vs Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Updated September 29, 2026. Rank says Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has the higher public score estimate, 36.09 versus 31.94, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 1
- Grok Code Fast 1 only
- 1
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only
- 6
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: Grok Code Fast 1 and Mistral Medium 3.5 128BHow 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.
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Grok Code Fast 1
Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Grok Code Fast 1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Grok Code Fast 1
Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCoding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Grok Code Fast 1 and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Grok Code Fast 1 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limitedLong documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
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.
21.5Grok Code Fast 126.6Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Directional only · BenchAlign v5.7
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B scores higher, but at least one score rests on Estimated evidence or a different benchmark set. Directional only, no winner.
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.
1 Grok Code Fast 1 only
1 Shared
6 Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only
3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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.
SWE-bench VerifiedCoding
Normalized gap 6.8Grok Code Fast 1:70.8%Mistral Medium 3.5 128B:77.6%
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 v5.7 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.
Coding
Directional only- Grok Code Fast 1
- 21.5
- Estimated · #119/143
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 26.6
- Estimated · #102/143
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 2 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Grok Code Fast 1
- 36.0
- Estimated · #112/169
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 33.6
- Supported · #121/169
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 0 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Instruction following
Directional only- Grok Code Fast 1
- 46.8
- #87/124
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 82.6
- #48/124
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not ranked
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 19.7
- Supported · #100/117
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 0 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Grok Code Fast 1
- 58.7
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 69.9
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not ranked
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 56.7
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not ranked
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Grok Code Fast 1
- Not ranked
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Grok Code Fast 1 | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 21.5Estimated · #119/143 | 26.6Estimated · #102/143 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 2 vs 2 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 36.0Estimated · #112/169 | 33.6Supported · #121/169 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 0 vs 2 public rows | Directional only |
| Instruction following | 46.8#87/124 | 82.6#48/124 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | Not ranked | 19.7Supported · #100/117 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 0 vs 3 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 58.7Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 69.9Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 56.7Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.7) 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
- Grok Code Fast 1
- $0.00095
- Fits in one request
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- $0.00525
- Fits in one request
Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Grok Code Fast 1
- $0.0145
- Fits in one request
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- $0.0975
- Fits in one request
Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Grok Code Fast 1
- $0.059
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- $0.405
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Grok Code Fast 1 has the lower modeled cost
Grok Code Fast 1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input 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.
SpecificationGrok Code Fast 1Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Grok Code Fast 1
256K
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
256K
API model ID
Grok Code Fast 1
Not sourced
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Grok Code Fast 1
Not published
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not published
Documented inputs
Grok Code Fast 1
Not sourced
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Grok Code Fast 1
Not sourced
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Grok Code Fast 1
Not sourced
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Grok Code Fast 1
Non-Reasoning
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Reasoning
Weight access
Grok Code Fast 1
Proprietary
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Open Weight
License
Grok Code Fast 1
Proprietary
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Open Weight
Release date
Grok Code Fast 1
2025-08-28
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
2026-04-29
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
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has the higher public score estimate, 36.09 versus 31.94, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.0145 vs $0.0975. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.059 vs $0.405.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 256K.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Grok Code Fast 1 or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has the higher public score estimate, 36.09 versus 31.94, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Grok Code Fast 1 or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B scores higher for coding on the public lane, 26.6 to 21.5. Grok Code Fast 1 and Mistral Medium 3.5 128B are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Grok Code Fast 1 or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
Grok Code Fast 1 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Grok Code Fast 1 or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00095 on Grok Code Fast 1 and $0.00525 on Mistral Medium 3.5 128B; repository review costs $0.0145 and $0.0975; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.059 and $0.405. Grok Code Fast 1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Grok Code Fast 1 or Mistral Medium 3.5 128B?
Both models list the same context window, 256K.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence8 rows
Agentic
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Grok Code Fast 170.8%SourceMistral Medium 3.5 128B77.6%SourceMistral Medium 3.5 128B leads this result
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Grok Code Fast 162.0%SourceMistral Medium 3.5 128B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Grok Code Fast 1—Mistral Medium 3.5 128B66.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
8 public results · 1 shared
Watch Grok Code Fast 1 vs Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.
Last updated September 29, 2026