Model comparison
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B vs Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Mistral Medium 3.5 128B unranked (Not scored); Qwen3.5-35B-A3B #80 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B and Qwen3.5-35B-A3B share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 11 results are unique to Mistral Medium 3.5 128B; 14 to Qwen3.5-35B-A3B.
Updated July 27, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only
- 11
- Qwen3.5-35B-A3B only
- 14
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B makes more sense if coding is the priority; Qwen3.5-35B-A3B is the better fit if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 262K context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B and Qwen3.5-35B-A3B finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.50 input / $7.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5-35B-A3B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3.5-35B-A3B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 256K for Mistral Medium 3.5 128B.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Δ | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B77.6 | Margin← 17.0 | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B60.6 |
| Agentic | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B51.0 |
| Reasoning | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B59.0 |
| Knowledge | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B81.6 |
| Multilingual | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B81.0 |
| Inst. Following | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B91.9 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 77.6%B 69.2%Winner: Mistral Medium 3.5 128BΔ 8.4SWE-bench Verified: Mistral Medium 3.5 128B scored 77.6%; Qwen3.5-35B-A3B scored 69.2%. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B$1.5 input / $7.5 output | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot available | Qwen3.5-35B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot available | Qwen3.5-35B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B256K | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B262K | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 91.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 19.0% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 94.2% | 89.2% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 21.6% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 933 | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 39.10% | 28.96% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 33.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 69.1% | — | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 33.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 516 | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 14.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 40.5% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 61% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 54.5% | Not comparable |
CodingMistral Medium 3.5 128B wins4 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 29.9% | 29.3% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 74.8% | 84.5% | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 12.8% | 19.7% | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -36.3% | -46.4% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 25.1% | 20.5% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 82.0% | 84.0% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 33.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 85.3% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 63.4% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 84.2% | Not comparable |
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProXSource | — | 81% | Not comparable |
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or Qwen3.5-35B-A3B?
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B and Qwen3.5-35B-A3B are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for coding, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or Qwen3.5-35B-A3B?
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.6 versus 60.6. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Know when it’s worth switching models
The model to choose, the cheaper alternative, and the release we would wait on.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.