Model comparison
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B vs Step 3.7 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
BenchAlign evidence: Mistral Medium 3.5 128B not scored; Step 3.7 Flash estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B and Step 3.7 Flash share 18 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 6 results are unique to Mistral Medium 3.5 128B; 12 to Step 3.7 Flash.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 18
- Mistral Medium 3.5 128B only
- 6
- Step 3.7 Flash only
- 12
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Mistral Medium 3.5 128B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Step 3.7 Flash only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 18 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 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 61 to 57. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 77.6 against 56.3.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.50 input / $7.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens for Step 3.7 Flash. That is roughly 6.5x on output cost alone.
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 | Step 3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B77.6 | Margin← 21.3 | Step 3.7 Flash56.3 |
| Agentic | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Step 3.7 Flash66.4 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Step 3.7 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B$1.5 input / $7.5 output | Step 3.7 Flash$0.2 input / $1.15 output | Step 3.7 Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot available | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BNot available | Step 3.7 FlashNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B256K | Step 3.7 Flash256K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 91.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 19.0% | 21.5% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 94.2% | 98.5% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 21.4% | 25.9% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 929 | 1017 | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 39.10% | 51.57% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 33.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 0.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 14.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.5% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 75.8% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 92.8% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 49.5% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 67.1% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | — | 47.2% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 14.8% | Not comparable |
CodingMistral Medium 3.5 128B wins6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 77.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 46.9% | 39.6% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 33.3% | 35.6% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 39.6% | 40.0% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 56.3% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.5% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 29.9% | 30.3% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 74.8% | 80.9% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-HLESource | 12.8% | 19.9% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -36.3% | -37.5% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 25.1% | 25.4% | Step 3.7 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 82.0% | 84.4% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
| AA Openness IndexSource | 33.3% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal4 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B | Step 3.7 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 68.8% | 67.3% | Mistral Medium 3.5 128B leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or Step 3.7 Flash?
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 61 to 57.
Which is better for coding, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or Step 3.7 Flash?
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.6 versus 56.3. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.