Model comparison
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Head-to-head evidence from 19 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); Qwen3.6 Plus #34 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B and Qwen3.6 Plus share 19 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 6 results are unique to Mistral Medium 3.5 128B; 41 to Qwen3.6 Plus.
Updated July 27, 2026- Shared results
- 19
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only
- 6
- Qwen3.6 Plus only
- 41
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B makes more sense if coding is the priority; Qwen3.6 Plus is the better fit if you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 19 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 Qwen3.6 Plus 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.
Qwen3.6 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, 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 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B77.6 | Margin← 7.3 | Qwen3.6 Plus70.3 |
| Agentic | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus61.6 |
| Reasoning | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus62.0 |
| Knowledge | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus57.1 |
| Math | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus60.5 |
| Multilingual | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus84.7 |
| Multimodal | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus79.8 |
| Inst. Following | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus82.3 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 77.6%B 78.8%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 1.2SWE-bench Verified: Mistral Medium 3.5 128B scored 77.6%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 78.8%. Qwen3.6 Plus 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 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B$1.5 input / $7.5 output | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot available | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot available | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B256K | Qwen3.6 Plus1M | Qwen3.6 Plus lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic21 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 91.4% | 70.7% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 19.0% | 27.6% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 94.2% | 97.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 21.6% | 31.9% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 933 | 1139 | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 39.10% | 50.60% | Qwen3.6 Plus 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 | — | 61.6% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 58.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 57.2% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 44.3% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 41.5% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 39.8% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 48.2% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 74.1% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 74.3% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 18.0% | Not comparable |
CodingMistral Medium 3.5 128B wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 77.6% | 78.8% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 46.9% | 54.5% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 39.6% | 40.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 56.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 73.8% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 87.1% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 25.56% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 29.9% | 39.6% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 74.8% | 88.2% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-HLESource | 12.8% | 25.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -36.3% | 2.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 25.1% | 26.2% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 82.0% | 32.0% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 33.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 90.4% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 71.6% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 88.5% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.5% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93.3% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 28.8% | Not comparable |
Math7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | — | 95.3% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 96.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 94.6% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 83.8% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | — | 26.207% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | — | 8.333% | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 64.9% | 78.0% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| MMMUSource | — | 86.0% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 78.8% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.0% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 68.2% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 81.5% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 96.9% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1265 | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B and Qwen3.6 Plus 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 Qwen3.6 Plus?
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.6 versus 70.3. Inside this category, AA Coding Index 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.