Mistral Medium 3.5 128B vs Qwen3.7 Flash
At a Glance
| Compare | Mistral Medium 3.5 128BMistral AI | Qwen3.7 FlashQwen |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | Not reported | $0.030Openrouter ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | Not reported | $0.13Openrouter ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 262K | 1,000K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 28, 2026View model evidence → | Sep 3, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Mistral-Medium-3.5-128B | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Mistral AI | Qwen |
| Family | Mistral Medium 3 5 128b | Qwen3 7 |
| Model | Mistral-Medium-3.5-128B | Qwen3.7 Flash |
| Version | Mistral-Medium-3.5-128B | Qwen3.7 Flash |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | 2026-07-15 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 262K | 1,000K |
| Total parameters | 127.7B | Unknown |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | other | Unknown |
| Open weights | Yes | No |
| API available | Unknown | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | No |
| Provider access | Unknown | Alibaba Cloud Model Studio (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | agents, chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools, vision |
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B Capabilities
Qwen3.7 Flash Capabilities
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B vs Qwen3.7 Flash FAQs
Is Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or Qwen3.7 Flash better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Mistral Medium 3.5 128B and Qwen3.7 Flash, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or Qwen3.7 Flash?+
Only Qwen3.7 Flash has a directly sourced input price: $0.030 per million tokens. Only Qwen3.7 Flash has a directly sourced output price: $0.13 per million tokens.
Which has a larger context window, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or Qwen3.7 Flash?+
Qwen3.7 Flash has the larger sourced context window. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B supports 262K and Qwen3.7 Flash supports 1,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or Qwen3.7 Flash?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or Qwen3.7 Flash be self-hosted?+
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is open weight; Qwen3.7 Flash is not marked open weight.
Can Mistral Medium 3.5 128B and Qwen3.7 Flash understand images?+
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is documented with image input; Qwen3.7 Flash is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or Qwen3.7 Flash?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Mistral Medium 3.5 128B is — and Qwen3.7 Flash is 66K.
Do Mistral Medium 3.5 128B and Qwen3.7 Flash support reasoning and tool use?+
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Qwen3.7 Flash: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or Qwen3.7 Flash?+
Mistral Medium 3.5 128B has 0 sourced provider routes; Qwen3.7 Flash has 2, so Qwen3.7 Flash has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Mistral Medium 3.5 128B or Qwen3.7 Flash?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.