Knowledge
Directional only- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 39.0
- Supported · #140/183
- Qwen3 Max
- 41.8
- Estimated · #125/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B vs Qwen3 Max
Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Qwen3 Max has the higher public score estimate, 40.71 versus 30.13, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
1 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
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
Qwen3 Max
Qwen3 Max has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Qwen3 Max 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
Qwen3 Max is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limited
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
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
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.
6 Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only
1 Shared
1 Qwen3 Max only
- Shared results
- 1
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only
- 6
- Qwen3 Max only
- 1
- 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.
Instruction following
Directional only- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 84.0
- #48/123
- Qwen3 Max
- 52.0
- #80/123
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 21.9
- Supported · #150/152
- Qwen3 Max
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 3 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 36.9
- Estimated · #127/151
- Qwen3 Max
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 68.6
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Qwen3 Max
- 55.4
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- Not ranked
- Qwen3 Max
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- Not ranked
- Qwen3 Max
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 55.6
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Qwen3 Max
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Qwen3 Max | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 39.0Supported · #140/183 | 41.8Estimated · #125/183 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 2 vs 0 public rows | Directional only |
| Instruction following | 84.0#48/123 | 52.0#80/123 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | 21.9Supported · #150/152 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 3 vs 1 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 36.9Estimated · #127/151 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 2 vs 1 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 68.6Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 55.4Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 55.6Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | 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 Medium 3.5 128B
- $0.00525
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3 Max
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Qwen3 Max has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- $0.0975
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3 Max
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Qwen3 Max has no comparable published API token rate.
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
- Qwen3 Max
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3 Max 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.
SpecificationMistral Medium 3.5 128BQwen3 Max
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
256K
Qwen3 Max
1M
API model ID
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not sourced
Qwen3 Max
Not sourced
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
Qwen3 Max
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not sourced
Qwen3 Max
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not sourced
Qwen3 Max
Not sourced
Provider availability
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not sourced
Qwen3 Max
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Reasoning
Qwen3 Max
Reasoning
Weight access
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Open Weight
Qwen3 Max
Proprietary
License
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Open Weight
Qwen3 Max
Proprietary
Release date
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
2026-04-29
Qwen3 Max
2026-04-20
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
- Qwen3 Max has the higher public score estimate, 40.71 versus 30.13, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Qwen3 Max has the larger documented window (1M).
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 evidence8 rows
Agentic
τ³-bench results
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B91.4%SourceQwen3 Max—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Shared sourceMistral Medium 3.5 128B39.10%Qwen3 Max43.74%Qwen3 Max leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B39.0%SourceQwen3 Max—Not directly comparable
Coding
Knowledge
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or Qwen3 Max?
Qwen3 Max has the higher public score estimate, 40.71 versus 30.13, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or Qwen3 Max?
Qwen3 Max is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or Qwen3 Max?
Qwen3 Max is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or Qwen3 Max?
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 Medium 3.5 128B or Qwen3 Max?
Qwen3 Max has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 10, 2026
Watch Mistral Medium 3.5 128B vs Qwen3 Max
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.