Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning) vs Qwen3.5 397B

Updated July 28, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)

Mistral

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Qwen3.5 397B

Alibaba

56.2/100

Estimated · Public rank #78

90% interval 44.7–67.7

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.

0 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

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

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning) has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning) has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning) has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • 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. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

What is actually comparable

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

Shared results
0
Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning) only
0
Qwen3.5 397B only
38
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Agentic

Not comparable
Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)
Not measured
Qwen3.5 397B
56.5
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)
Not measured
Qwen3.5 397B
66.5
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)
Not measured
Qwen3.5 397B
63.2
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)
Not measured
Qwen3.5 397B
56.6
Weighted basis
0 vs 4 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)
Not measured
Qwen3.5 397B
90.6
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)
Not measured
Qwen3.5 397B
84.7
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)
Not measured
Qwen3.5 397B
79.6
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)
Not measured
Qwen3.5 397B
92.6
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

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.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

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

Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)
$0.00022
Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 397B
$0.0024
Fits in one request

Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning) has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)
$0.00795
Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 397B
$0.0408
Fits in one request

Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning) has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)
$0.0345
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Qwen3.5 397B
$0.168
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

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.

Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)

256K

Qwen3.5 397B

128K

API model ID

Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 397B

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

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

Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)

Not published

Qwen3.5 397B

Not published

Documented inputs

Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 397B

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 397B

Not sourced

Provider availability

Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 397B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)

Reasoning

Qwen3.5 397B

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)

Open Weight

Qwen3.5 397B

Open Weight

License

Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)

Open Weight

Qwen3.5 397B

Open Weight

Release date

Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)

2025-12-02

Qwen3.5 397B

2026-02-16

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
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.00795 vs $0.0408. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.0345 vs $0.168.
Context tradeoff
Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning) has the larger documented window (256K).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence38 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B52.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B62%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B56.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • QwenClawBench

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B51.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ³-bench results

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B68.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VITA-Bench

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B43.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepPlanning

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B37.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B36.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B46.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP-Tasks

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B74.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B74.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B46.76%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B14.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B76.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v6

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B83.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B50.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • LongBench v2

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B63.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AI-Needle

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B68.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B88.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SuperGPQA

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B70.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B87.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Redux

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B94.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • C-Eval

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B93%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B28.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME26

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B93.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2025

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B94.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Nov 2025

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B92.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B87.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMAnswerBench

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B80.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multilingual

  • MMLU-ProX

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B84.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NOVA-63

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B59.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B79%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B88.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B80.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B84.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ScreenSpot Pro

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B65.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • V*

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B95.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFEval

    Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen3.5 397B92.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning) or Qwen3.5 397B?

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning) or Qwen3.5 397B?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning) or Qwen3.5 397B?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning) or Qwen3.5 397B?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00022 on Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning) and $0.0024 on Qwen3.5 397B; repository review costs $0.00795 and $0.0408; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.0345 and $0.168. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning) or Qwen3.5 397B?

Ministral 3 8B (Reasoning) has the larger documented context window: 256K, compared with 128K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated July 28, 2026

Keep the decision current

One weekly note on benchmark changes, pricing moves, and models worth re-testing.