Agentic
Not comparable- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 21.9
- Supported · #150/152
- Solar Open 2
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 3 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B vs Solar Open 2
Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
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 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
Solar Open 2
Solar Open 2 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
Solar Open 2 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
Solar Open 2 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
10 Solar Open 2 only
- Shared results
- 1
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only
- 6
- Solar Open 2 only
- 10
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
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.
Coding
Not comparable- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 36.9
- Estimated · #127/151
- Solar Open 2
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 68.6
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Solar Open 2
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 39.0
- Supported · #140/183
- Solar Open 2
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- Not ranked
- Solar Open 2
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- Not ranked
- Solar Open 2
- 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
- Solar Open 2
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
- 84.0
- #48/123
- Solar Open 2
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Solar Open 2 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 21.9Supported · #150/152 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 3 vs 3 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 36.9Estimated · #127/151 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 2 vs 2 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 68.6Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 39.0Supported · #140/183 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 2 vs 3 public rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 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 |
| Instruction following | 84.0#48/123 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 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.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B: 77.6%Solar Open 2: 70.4%Normalized gap 7.2Mistral Medium 3.5 128B source Solar Open 2 source
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
- Solar Open 2
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Solar Open 2 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
- Solar Open 2
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Solar Open 2 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
- Solar Open 2
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- 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. Solar Open 2 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 128BSolar Open 2
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
256K
Solar Open 2
API model ID
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not sourced
Solar Open 2
upstage/Solar-Open2-250B
Upstage Solar Open 2 model cardCached-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
Solar Open 2
No comparable hosted API rate
Upstage Solar Open 2 model cardDocumented inputs
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not sourced
Solar Open 2
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not sourced
Solar Open 2
Not sourced
Provider availability
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Not sourced
Solar Open 2
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Reasoning
Solar Open 2
Reasoning
Weight access
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Open Weight
Solar Open 2
Open Weight
License
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Open Weight
Solar Open 2
Open Weight
Release date
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
2026-04-29
Solar Open 2
2026-07-22
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
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Solar Open 2 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 evidence17 rows
Agentic
τ³-bench results
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B91.4%SourceSolar Open 2—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B39.10%SourceSolar Open 2—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B39.0%SourceSolar Open 2—Not directly comparable
terminalBenchHard
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B—Solar Open 228.3%SourceNot directly comparable
APEX-Agents
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B—Solar Open 216.6%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B—Solar Open 258.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Knowledge
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B34.8%SourceSolar Open 2—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B75.3%SourceSolar Open 2—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B—Solar Open 286.2%SourceNot directly comparable
GPQA-D
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B—Solar Open 286.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B—Solar Open 228.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
Instruction following
IFBench
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B—Solar Open 280%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or Solar Open 2?
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 Solar Open 2?
Solar Open 2 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 Solar Open 2?
Solar Open 2 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 Solar Open 2?
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 Solar Open 2?
Solar Open 2 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 10, 2026
Watch Mistral Medium 3.5 128B vs Solar Open 2
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.