Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Mistral Large 3 vs Pareto 26.10 Preview

Updated November 13, 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

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.

Model A
Mistral logo

Mistral

33.33/100

Estimated · Public rank #162

Conditional range 23.6–43.0

Model B

Unbiased

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

API price per 1M tokens

Mistral Large 3: $0.50 input / $1.50 output

Pareto 26.10 Preview: $2.50 input / $7.50 output

Context window

Mistral Large 3: 256K

Pareto 26.10 Preview: Not sourced

Released

Mistral Large 3: December 2, 2025

Pareto 26.10 Preview: October 1, 2026

Shared results
0
Mistral Large 3 only
4
Pareto 26.10 Preview only
3
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8
Estimated: Mistral Large 3. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How 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.

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Mistral Large 3

    Mistral Large 3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

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

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

    Mistral Large 3

    Mistral Large 3 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Mistral Large 3 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

    Mistral Large 3

    Mistral Large 3 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

    Pareto 26.10 Preview 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

    Pareto 26.10 Preview is 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

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete context comparison is not sourced.

    Confidence: limited

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.

15.7Mistral Large 3—Pareto 26.10 Preview

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

Or describe your own job

The LLM Selector reads what you need a model for and returns a shortlist, ranked in the same order the job pages publish.

Describe the task and constraints. This selector recommends models; it cannot carry out the task or access your files and accounts.

We keep what you type here, drafts included, for 180 days, and after that only the job and requirements read from it. Nothing is tied to your IP address or account. Leave out names and other personal details. Privacy

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.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

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

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, reasoning, multimodal, 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
Mistral Large 3
18.9
Estimated · #121/135
Pareto 26.10 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Mistral Large 3
15.7
Supported · #143/162
Pareto 26.10 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Mistral Large 3
25.5
Estimated · #134/160
Pareto 26.10 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Mistral Large 3
Not ranked
Pareto 26.10 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Mistral Large 3
32.3
Supported · #142/180
Pareto 26.10 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Mistral Large 3
Not ranked
Pareto 26.10 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Mistral Large 3
41.5
#122/157
Pareto 26.10 Preview
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Mistral Large 3
Not ranked
Pareto 26.10 Preview
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, reasoning, multimodal, 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

Mistral Large 3
$0.00125
Fits in one request
Pareto 26.10 Preview
$0.00625
Fit state unavailable

Mistral Large 3 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Mistral Large 3
$0.0295
Fits in one request
Pareto 26.10 Preview
$0.1475
Fit state unavailable

Mistral Large 3 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Mistral Large 3
$0.125
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Pareto 26.10 Preview
$0.175
Fit state unavailable

Mistral Large 3 has the lower modeled cost

Mistral Large 3 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Your workload

Enter a month of tokens to price it at both models’ listed API rates.

Mistral Large 3
$8.00
per month
Pareto 26.10 Preview
$40.00
per month

Standard listed rates, no batch or volume discounts.

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

Price against score, among all priced models

Overall score against output price per 1M tokens, one model per family. Pricing as of November 12, 2026.

Mistral Large 3

20406080100$0.10$0.50$1$5$10$50$100Output price, $ per 1M tokens (log)Overall score
  • 21 models score at least as high as Mistral Large 3 for the same price or less. The nearest is Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite (score 46.6, also $1.50 per 1M output tokens).
  • Pareto 26.10 Preview has no overall score yet, so it is not plotted.

Gray dots are the other priced models. The dark step line is the efficiency frontier: for a model under it, another model costs no more and scores at least as high.

See Mistral Large 3 on the full price vs performance chart

Specification differences

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

Cached-input rate

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

Mistral Large 3

Not published

Pareto 26.10 Preview

$0.25 per 1M cached input tokens

Unbiased direct API pricing

Provider availability

Mistral Large 3

Not sourced

Pareto 26.10 Preview

Preview · Unbiased Chat Completions API, Unbiased Messages API, OpenRouter

Unbiased API documentation

Reasoning profile

Mistral Large 3

Non-Reasoning

Pareto 26.10 Preview

Reasoning

Weight access

Mistral Large 3

Open Weight

Pareto 26.10 Preview

Proprietary

License

Mistral Large 3

Open Weight

Pareto 26.10 Preview

Proprietary

Release date

Mistral Large 3

2025-12-02

Pareto 26.10 Preview

2026-10-01

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: $0.0295 vs $0.1475. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.125 vs $0.175.
Context tradeoff
A complete documented context comparison is not available.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Mistral Large 3 or Pareto 26.10 Preview?

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 3 or Pareto 26.10 Preview?

Pareto 26.10 Preview is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Mistral Large 3 or Pareto 26.10 Preview?

Pareto 26.10 Preview is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Mistral Large 3 or Pareto 26.10 Preview?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00125 on Mistral Large 3 and $0.00625 on Pareto 26.10 Preview; repository review costs $0.0295 and $0.1475; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.125 and $0.175. Mistral Large 3 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Mistral Large 3 or Pareto 26.10 Preview?

A complete documented context-window comparison is not available.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Mistral Large 3
API / mo$1,500
Self-host / mo$27,962
Break-evenNot reached at 70% load
Pareto 26.10 Preview
API / mo$7,500
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Model the full break-even

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence7 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 4.0

    Mistral Large 3—
    Pareto 26.10 Preview50.80%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Mistral Large 355.3%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Mistral Large 341.4%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • DeepSWE

    Mistral Large 3—
    Pareto 26.10 Preview69.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Mistral Large 368.4%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Mistral Large 379.8%
    Source
    Pareto 26.10 Preview—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Mistral Large 3—
    Pareto 26.10 Preview92.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

7 public results · 0 shared

Watch Mistral Large 3 vs Pareto 26.10 Preview

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

Read a sample issue

Join 7,000+ subscribers.

Last updated November 13, 2026