Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
79
Step 3.7 Flash
72
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.
Coding
+21.3 difference
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B
Step 3.7 Flash
$1.5 / $7.5
$0.2 / $1.15
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
256K
256K
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.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 79 to 72. 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.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 79 to 72.
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.6 versus 56.3. Step 3.7 Flash stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.