Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Mistral Medium 3.5 128B vs Pokee-Isaac 28B

Updated August 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Mistral Medium 3.5 128B

Mistral

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Pokee-Isaac 28B

Pokee AI

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.

1 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

    Pokee-Isaac 28B

    Pokee-Isaac 28B has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Pokee-Isaac 28B

    Pokee-Isaac 28B 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

    Pokee-Isaac 28B

    Pokee-Isaac 28B has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Pokee-Isaac 28B 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

    Pokee-Isaac 28B

    Pokee-Isaac 28B 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

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
1
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only
2
Pokee-Isaac 28B only
6
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
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not measured
Pokee-Isaac 28B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
77.6
Pokee-Isaac 28B
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not measured
Pokee-Isaac 28B
60.7
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not measured
Pokee-Isaac 28B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not measured
Pokee-Isaac 28B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not measured
Pokee-Isaac 28B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not measured
Pokee-Isaac 28B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not measured
Pokee-Isaac 28B
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 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

Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
$0.00525
Fits in one request
Pokee-Isaac 28B
$0.00065
Fits in one request

Pokee-Isaac 28B has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
$0.0975
Fits in one request
Pokee-Isaac 28B
$0.0105
Fits in one request

Pokee-Isaac 28B 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 Medium 3.5 128B
$0.405
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Pokee-Isaac 28B
$0.043
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

Pokee-Isaac 28B has the lower modeled cost

Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Pokee-Isaac 28B 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.

Mistral Medium 3.5 128B

256K

Pokee-Isaac 28B

10M

Pokee-Isaac 28B model page

Cached-input rate

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

Mistral Medium 3.5 128B

Not published

Pokee-Isaac 28B

Not published

Pokee-Isaac 28B model page

Documented inputs

Mistral Medium 3.5 128B

Not sourced

Pokee-Isaac 28B

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Mistral Medium 3.5 128B

Not sourced

Pokee-Isaac 28B

Not sourced

Provider availability

Mistral Medium 3.5 128B

Not sourced

Pokee-Isaac 28B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Mistral Medium 3.5 128B

Reasoning

Pokee-Isaac 28B

Reasoning

Weight access

Mistral Medium 3.5 128B

Open Weight

Pokee-Isaac 28B

Proprietary

License

Mistral Medium 3.5 128B

Open Weight

Pokee-Isaac 28B

Proprietary

Release date

Mistral Medium 3.5 128B

2026-04-29

Pokee-Isaac 28B

2026-08-03

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
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.0975 vs $0.0105. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.405 vs $0.043.
Context tradeoff
Pokee-Isaac 28B has the larger documented window (10M).

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 evidence9 rows

Agentic

  • τ³-bench results

    Mistral Medium 3.5 128B91.4%
    Source
    Pokee-Isaac 28B66.2%
    Source

    Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads this result

  • Gert Labs

    Mistral Medium 3.5 128B39.10%
    Source
    Pokee-Isaac 28B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Mistral Medium 3.5 128B—
    Pokee-Isaac 28B65.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BFCL v4

    Mistral Medium 3.5 128B—
    Pokee-Isaac 28B70.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP-Atlas claim coverage

    Mistral Medium 3.5 128B—
    Pokee-Isaac 28B74.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • PinchBench

    Mistral Medium 3.5 128B—
    Pokee-Isaac 28B95.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Mistral Medium 3.5 128B77.6%
    Source
    Pokee-Isaac 28B—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Mistral Medium 3.5 128B—
    Pokee-Isaac 28B65.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCRv2

    Mistral Medium 3.5 128B—
    Pokee-Isaac 28B60.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or Pokee-Isaac 28B?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or Pokee-Isaac 28B?

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, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or Pokee-Isaac 28B?

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, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or Pokee-Isaac 28B?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00525 on Mistral Medium 3.5 128B and $0.00065 on Pokee-Isaac 28B; repository review costs $0.0975 and $0.0105; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.405 and $0.043. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Pokee-Isaac 28B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or Pokee-Isaac 28B?

Pokee-Isaac 28B has the larger documented context window: 10M, compared with 256K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 4, 2026

Watch Mistral Medium 3.5 128B vs Pokee-Isaac 28B

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.