Skip to main content
Radar

Keep up with the models you depend on. Follow price changes, retirements, and API updates.Follow the models you depend on.

Follow model changes
Mistral logo
Model A
Mistral Large 2

Mistral

36.41/100

Supported · Public rank #216

90% interval 18.154.7

Mistral Large 2 vs Mistral Medium 3

Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Mistral logo
Model B
Mistral Medium 3

Mistral

30.55/100

Estimated · Public rank #230

90% interval 24.836.3

Decision reading

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 resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

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.

No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.

Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.

Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Mistral Large 2 and Mistral Medium 3 are 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

    Mistral Large 2 and Mistral Medium 3 are not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented

  • 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. Mistral Large 2 does not fit this workload in one request. Mistral Medium 3 does not fit this workload in one request. Mistral Medium 3 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Mistral Large 2 has no comparable published API token rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

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

    Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

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

Evidence parity totals are not available.
Shared results
0
Mistral Large 2 only
0
Mistral Medium 3 only
0
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign 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.

Knowledge

Directional only
Mistral Large 2
36.2
Estimated · #152/183
Mistral Medium 3
35.2
Estimated · #158/183
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Instruction following

Directional only
Mistral Large 2
35.2
#111/123
Mistral Medium 3
45.7
#92/123
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Mistral Large 2
Not ranked
Mistral Medium 3
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Mistral Large 2
Not ranked
Mistral Medium 3
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Mistral Large 2
Not ranked
Mistral Medium 3
42.5
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Mistral Large 2
Not ranked
Mistral Medium 3
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Mistral Large 2
Not ranked
Mistral Medium 3
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Mistral Large 2
Not ranked
Mistral Medium 3
38.1
Unranked · 1 rankable row
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) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

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

Mistral Large 2
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Mistral Medium 3
$0.0014
Fits in one request

Mistral Large 2 has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Mistral Large 2
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Mistral Medium 3
$0.026
Fits in one request

Mistral Large 2 has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Mistral Large 2
API rate not published
Does not fit in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable
Mistral Medium 3
$0.108
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

Mistral Large 2 does not fit this workload in one request. Mistral Medium 3 does not fit this workload in one request. Mistral Medium 3 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Mistral Large 2 has no comparable published API token 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.

Mistral Large 2

128K

Mistral Medium 3

128K

API model ID

Mistral Large 2

Not sourced

Mistral Medium 3

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

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

Mistral Large 2

No comparable hosted API rate

Mistral Medium 3

Not published

Documented inputs

Mistral Large 2

Not sourced

Mistral Medium 3

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Mistral Large 2

Not sourced

Mistral Medium 3

Not sourced

Provider availability

Mistral Large 2

Not sourced

Mistral Medium 3

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Mistral Large 2

Non-Reasoning

Mistral Medium 3

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Mistral Large 2

Proprietary

Mistral Medium 3

Proprietary

License

Mistral Large 2

Proprietary

Mistral Medium 3

Proprietary

Release date

Mistral Large 2

2024-07-24

Mistral Medium 3

2026-02-20

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
Both entries list Mistral as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
Quality signal
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 128K.

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

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Mistral Large 2 or Mistral Medium 3?

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, Mistral Large 2 or Mistral Medium 3?

Mistral Large 2 and Mistral Medium 3 are not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Mistral Large 2 or Mistral Medium 3?

Mistral Large 2 and Mistral Medium 3 are not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Mistral Large 2 or Mistral Medium 3?

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, Mistral Large 2 or Mistral Medium 3?

Both models list the same context window, 128K.

Related comparisons

Last updated September 10, 2026

Watch Mistral Large 2 vs Mistral Medium 3

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.