Model Comparison
Medium 3.1
vs. Qwen3 VL 32B Instruct
Comparing 2 AI models · 10 benchmarks · Mistral, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Mi Medium 3.1 13 metric wins Strongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
Medium 3.1
100.0 value score
32.2 reasoning / $0.80/1M
Lowest Price
Medium 3.1
$0.40/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3 VL 32B Instruct
45.4 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Medium 3.1
18.3 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Medium 3.1 has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Medium 3.1 is 1.7x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3 VL 32B Instruct.
Speed gap
Medium 3.1 generates about 1.2x as many tokens per second as Qwen3 VL 32B Instruct.
Reasoning gap
Qwen3 VL 32B Instruct leads Medium 3.1 by 13.2 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Medium 3.1 leads Qwen3 VL 32B Instruct by 2.7 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Medium 3.1
Mistral
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3 VL 32B Instruct
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick Mi Medium 3.1 | Al Qwen3 VL 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.40/1M | $0.70/1M |
| Output Cost | $2.00/1M | $2.80/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.80/1M | $1.22/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Mistral | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Aug 12, 2025 | Oct 21, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 90.8 tok/s | 74.3 tok/s |
| TTFT | 492ms | 1195ms |
| Latency | 492ms | 1195ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 92.1 |
| Reasoning Score | 32.2 | 45.4 |
| Intelligence | 21.3 | 17.2 |
| Coding | 18.3 | 15.6 |
| Math | 38.3 | 68.3 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 58.8% | 67.1% |
| MMLU Pro | 68.3% | 79.1% |
| HLE | 4.4% | 6.3% |
| LiveCodeBench | 40.6% | 51.4% |
| AIME 2025 | 38.3% | 68.3% |
| SciCode | 33.8% | 30.1% |
| LCR | 19.7% | 31.3% |
| IFBench | 39.8% | 39.2% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 40.6% | 29.2% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 10.6% | 8.3% |
Key Takeaways
Medium 3.1 offers the best value at $0.40/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3 VL 32B Instruct has the strongest reasoning profile with a 45.4 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Medium 3.1 reaches a 18.3 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Medium 3.1
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Code generation
- Software development
Qwen3 VL 32B Instruct
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
