Mistral Medium 3.1
VS
Qwen3.7 Max
Mistral Medium 3.1 vs Qwen3.7 Max: which wins at real work?
22 task areas · same graded test runs · rank comparison only, so 0–100 and Elo collections never mix raw scores.
Qwen3.7 Max wins 22 of 22 task areas we tested; Mistral Medium 3.1 takes 0. Mistral Medium 3.1 costs 2.1× less per token ($2.4 vs $5 per 1M).
Mistral Medium 3.1 costs 2.1× less per token ($2.4 vs $5 per 1M).
Task by task
| Task area | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Qwen3.7 Max | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| RAG, Safety & Grounding |
#111
/ 113
Strong
|
#1
/ 113
Excellent
|
Qwen3.7 Max |
| Content & Brand |
#110
/ 124
Needs editing
|
#10
/ 124
Strong
|
Qwen3.7 Max |
| Customer Support |
#110
/ 113
Needs editing
|
#11
/ 113
Strong
|
Qwen3.7 Max |
| Presentations & Decks |
#105
/ 110
Usable
|
#9
/ 110
Excellent
|
Qwen3.7 Max |
| Creative & Comedy | #100 / 110 | #9 / 110 | Qwen3.7 Max |
| Coding |
#108
/ 115
Needs editing
|
#19
/ 115
Excellent
|
Qwen3.7 Max |
| Structured Output |
#91
/ 113
Strong
|
#2
/ 113
Excellent
|
Qwen3.7 Max |
| Executive Assistant |
#94
/ 112
Usable
|
#7
/ 112
Strong
|
Qwen3.7 Max |
| AI Strategy |
#120
/ 126
Usable
|
#36
/ 126
Strong
|
Qwen3.7 Max |
| Data & Analytics |
#87
/ 110
Excellent
|
#15
/ 110
Excellent
|
Qwen3.7 Max |
| Chef / Home Cooking |
#116
/ 126
Needs editing
|
#47
/ 126
Usable
|
Qwen3.7 Max |
| Sales |
#92
/ 110
Usable
|
#24
/ 110
Strong
|
Qwen3.7 Max |
| Landing Pages |
#63
/ 72
Usable
|
#10
/ 72
Strong
|
Qwen3.7 Max |
| Translation & Localization |
#53
/ 110
Excellent
|
#1
/ 110
Excellent
|
Qwen3.7 Max |
| Research & Competitive Analysis |
#105
/ 110
Weak
|
#58
/ 110
Usable
|
Qwen3.7 Max |
| Investor & Pitch |
#65
/ 66
Needs editing
|
#19
/ 66
Strong
|
Qwen3.7 Max |
| Knowledge & Docs |
#77
/ 110
Usable
|
#34
/ 110
Strong
|
Qwen3.7 Max |
| Product & Project Management |
#50
/ 110
Strong
|
#7
/ 110
Excellent
|
Qwen3.7 Max |
| Training & Education |
#47
/ 110
Excellent
|
#13
/ 110
Excellent
|
Qwen3.7 Max |
| Summarization & Meeting Notes |
#39
/ 110
Excellent
|
#12
/ 110
Excellent
|
Qwen3.7 Max |
| Legal & HR |
#70
/ 110
Strong
|
#46
/ 110
Excellent
|
Qwen3.7 Max |
| Frontend & Landing Pages |
#35
/ 109
Needs editing
|
#14
/ 109
Needs editing
|
Qwen3.7 Max |
Rank = position among every model config we tested in that task area (lower is better). Sorted by biggest gap first.
Same task, both models — judged
Both models answered the same test case; an independent judge graded each. Quotes are the judge's actual rationale.
Coding
FastAPI endpoint validation (API and Data Code Test)
“The model fundamentally fails at using Pydantic. It changes the API contract by making 'role' a list instead of a string, uses 'conlist' bizarrely, and fails to include the necessary decorators for its custom validation methods, rendering them dead code. The requested validation rules are therefore not enforced.”
“The response is expert-level and production-ready. It perfectly implements the requested Pydantic validation, correctly handles the 409 conflict, and even identifies a syntax error (await in a sync function) in the original snippet. The explanation is concise and highly relevant.”
Frequently asked
Is Mistral Medium 3.1 better than Qwen3.7 Max?
Across 22 task areas we benchmarked, Qwen3.7 Max ranks higher in 22 and Mistral Medium 3.1 in 0.
Which is cheaper, Mistral Medium 3.1 or Qwen3.7 Max?
Mistral Medium 3.1 costs 2.1× less per token ($2.4 vs $5 per 1M).
What is Qwen3.7 Max better at?
Qwen3.7 Max out-ranks Mistral Medium 3.1 at RAG, Safety & Grounding, Content & Brand, Customer Support.
More comparisons
This page is Spring Prompt, running in public
We just did this for every model. Do it for your prompt.
The rankings above come from running real tasks through real models and scoring every output. Spring Prompt is that same engine — pointed at your prompt, your test cases, and your definition of good.
- Generate test cases from your prompt — no eval set required to start.
- Compare models side by side with quality, cost and latency in one matrix.
- Optimise the winner until the scores say it's ready to ship.
Prompt × model results
12 test cases · 3 evals