Head-to-head comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs. Mistral Medium 3.5

Compare published benchmark results from matching versions and cohorts, API pricing, and technical specifications. Any documented test setup differences remain visible.

shared result series: 4
distinct benchmarks: 4
latest retrieval: 2026-09-29

First modelSecond model

Specifications

General specifications

Release date, availability, context window, architecture, and published parameter counts at a glance. Undisclosed details remain marked as unavailable.

Specifications for Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Mistral Medium 3.5
Attribute	Claude Sonnet 4.5	Mistral Medium 3.5
Provider	Anthropic	Mistral AI
Released	Sep 2025	Apr 28, 2026
Availability	Active	Active
Model type	Proprietary	Open Weights
Parameters	Not published	128B
Architecture	Not published	Dense
Context window	200,000 tokens	262,144 tokens
Knowledge cutoff	January 2025	Not published
Technical sources	Model, Context	Model, Context

Pricing

API pricing compared

The table compares official standard API rates per 1M tokens, including published cache pricing. Batch, fast, priority, regional surcharges, tool calls, and cloud platform pricing are excluded.

API pricing for Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Mistral Medium 3.5
Price type	Claude Sonnet 4.5	Mistral Medium 3.5
API input	$3	$1.5
API output	$15	$7.5
Cache read	$0.3	Not listed
Cache write (5 min.)	$3.75	Not listed
Cache write (1 hr.)	$6	Not listed
Price verified	09/22/2026 Source	09/22/2026 Source

Claude Sonnet 4.5Mistral Medium 3.5

API inputUSD per 1M tokens, base tier

Claude Sonnet 4.5$3

Mistral Medium 3.5$1.5

API outputUSD per 1M tokens, base tier

Claude Sonnet 4.5$15

Mistral Medium 3.5$7.5

Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Pricing by provider

Direct developer pricing and provider endpoint tariffs routed through OpenRouter are listed separately. Prices are in USD per 1M tokens. Context-dependent direct tiers plus regional, Flex, Priority, and other OpenRouter tariffs remain individually identifiable.

Provider pricing for Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Mistral Medium 3.5
Model	Provider	Purchase route and tariff	Input per 1M tokens	Output per 1M tokens	Source
Claude Sonnet 4.5	Anthropic	Direct from developerStandard API	Lowest listed price: $3	Lowest listed price: $15	Source09/22/2026
	Amazon Bedrock	Via OpenRouteramazon-bedrock	Lowest listed price: $3	Lowest listed price: $15	Source10/07/2026
	Amazon Bedrock	Via OpenRouteramazon-bedrock/eu-west-1	$3.3	$16.5	Source10/07/2026
	Anthropic	Via OpenRouteranthropic	Lowest listed price: $3	Lowest listed price: $15	Source10/07/2026
	Azure	Via OpenRouterazure/global	Lowest listed price: $3	Lowest listed price: $15	Source10/07/2026
	Claude Platform on AWS	Via OpenRouterclaude-on-aws	Lowest listed price: $3	Lowest listed price: $15	Source10/07/2026
	Google	Via OpenRoutergoogle-vertex/global	Lowest listed price: $3	Lowest listed price: $15	Source10/07/2026
	Google	Via OpenRoutergoogle-vertex/us-east5	$3.3	$16.5	Source10/07/2026
Mistral Medium 3.5	Mistral AI	Direct from developerStandard API	Lowest listed price: $1.5	Lowest listed price: $7.5	Source09/22/2026
	Mistral	Via OpenRoutermistral	Lowest listed price: $1.5	Lowest listed price: $7.5	Source10/07/2026
	Mistral	Via OpenRoutermistral/eu	$1.65	$8.25	Source10/07/2026
	Mistral	Via OpenRoutermistral/zdr	Lowest listed price: $1.5	Lowest listed price: $7.5	Source10/07/2026

Performance

Shared benchmarks

Only published results with the same benchmark version, task, metric, and comparison cohort are paired. Different reasoning levels, agents, harnesses, or output limits appear directly in the table.

Capability profile from matched benchmarks

Each axis averages directly matched benchmark families. A value of 100 means the stronger value within this pair, not a universal quality score.

Not enough directly matched categories for a reliable radar

Only 3 of at least 5 categories have comparable, direct model measurements. The benchmark tables below show the available evidence without filling missing axes.

Claude Sonnet 4.5Mistral Medium 3.5

CorpFin v2Overall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference

Claude Sonnet 4.560.8 %

Mistral Medium 3.558.78 %

MedCodeOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference

Claude Sonnet 4.540.569 %

Mistral Medium 3.533.752 %

MedScribeOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference

Claude Sonnet 4.584.515 %

Mistral Medium 3.567.728 %

SAGEOverall. Higher is better. No documented setup difference

Claude Sonnet 4.532.88 %

Mistral Medium 3.537.613 %

Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Benchmark scores for Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Mistral Medium 3.5
Benchmark and task	Claude Sonnet 4.5	Mistral Medium 3.5	Source
CorpFin v2Overall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 2Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is betterClaude Sonnet 4.5: Snapshot: claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929	Winner60.8 %	58.78 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 08/12/2026
MedCodeOverall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is betterClaude Sonnet 4.5: Snapshot: claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929	Winner40.569 %	33.752 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/26/2026
MedScribeOverall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is betterClaude Sonnet 4.5: Snapshot: claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929	Winner84.515 %	67.728 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/26/2026
SAGEOverall Test details No documented difference in the test setupVersion: 1Metric: accuracyScoring: Higher is betterClaude Sonnet 4.5: Snapshot: claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929	32.88 %	Winner37.613 %	Vals AI Source details Data as of: 09/26/2026
Key to the marks:better valuebetter, but not conclusivetie

Our model tests

Our tests

Compare how the models respond to the same prompt. Each test shows the latest attempt, with no subsequent fixes to the generated code. Earlier runs remain available in the test details. These results do not contribute to an overall score.

Pelican on a bicycle

A community classic for free-form SVG drawing.

Claude Sonnet 4.5

Reasoning (requested): high

Current attempt

Run date: 1 Oct 2026
API provider: openrouter
Requested API model: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5
API model reported in response: anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5
Reasoning setting: high
Pinned endpoint: Anthropic | anthropic/claude-4.5-sonnet-20250929
Temperature: Provider default
Token limit including reasoning: 8,192 tokens
Test protocol: community-visual-tests-v1
Technical checks: Passed, not a quality rating
Response time: 30.2 s

Visually reviewed. This individual test does not establish overall model quality.

Mistral Medium 3.5

Reasoning (requested): high

Current attempt

Run date: 1 Oct 2026
API provider: openrouter
Requested API model: mistralai/mistral-medium-3-5
API model reported in response: mistralai/mistral-medium-3-5
Reasoning setting: high
Pinned endpoint: Mistral | mistralai/mistral-medium-3.5-20260430
Temperature: Provider default
Token limit including reasoning: 8,192 tokens
Test protocol: community-visual-tests-v1
Technical checks: Passed, not a quality rating
Response time: 38.7 s

Visually reviewed. This individual test does not establish overall model quality.

Earlier attempts (1)

7 Sept 2026API request failedReasoning setting: high

Prompt and test conditions

Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle

Token limit including reasoning: 8,192 tokens

Task origin (Simon Willison)

How to read this comparison

Winning one benchmark is not an overall verdict

Your workload, budget, and required context length matter most. A coding benchmark says little about visual understanding or agent performance.

The standard price table uses direct developer rates. The provider comparison labels OpenRouter endpoints, regions, and special tariffs separately.

Every result links to its measurement source and retrieval date. Labels distinguish vendor reports, official benchmark leaderboards, and independent evaluations. Disputed or archived results are excluded.

More matchups

Compare Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Mistral Medium 3.5 with other leading models using the same data and benchmark logic.

View the complete LLM comparison