Fugu Ultra vs Mistral Medium 3.5 compared — price per token, context window, multimodality, openness and which to choose. Can the open-source model replace the paid one? Full 2026 breakdown.
Prices & specs refreshed from live data · olud.ai
Open-model prices = cheapest provider via OpenRouter; official maker rates may be higher.
| Spec | Fugu Ultra | Mistral Medium 3.5 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maker | Sakana AI | Mistral AI | – |
| Type | Proprietary | Open-weight | |
| Context window | 1M tokens | 262K tokens | SAFugu Ultra |
| Input price | $5/M | $1.5/M · free self-host | |
| Output price | $30/M | $7.5/M · free self-host | |
| Vision / multimodal | Yes | Yes | = Tie |
| Tool / function calling | Yes | Yes | = Tie |
| Self-hostable | No (API only) | Yes | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
Mistral Medium 3.5 is ~4.0× cheaper than Fugu Ultra on output tokens ($7.5 vs $30 per M tokens).
| Capability | Fugu Ultra | Mistral Medium 3.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Open weights (downloadable) | ✗ | ✓ |
| Self-hostable | ✗ | ✓ |
| Runs fully offline | ✗ | ✓ |
| Vision / multimodal | ✓ | ✓ |
| Tool / function calling | ✓ | ✓ |
| 1M+ context window | ✓ | ✗ |
Independent benchmark scores measured by Artificial Analysis. Higher is better (except latency).
Benchmark data by Artificial Analysis.
| Criterion | Fugu Ultra | Mistral Medium 3.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost-efficiency | 3.0 | 4.0 |
| Context window | 5.0 | 4.0 |
| Openness | 1.5 | 5.0 |
| Self-hosting | 1.0 | 5.0 |
| Multimodality | 5.0 | 5.0 |
Scores come from live data — output price (cost), context length, open vs closed weights (openness & self-hosting) and vision/tool support (multimodality). Raw task quality isn't scored here; it depends on your benchmark — see the verdict.
Fugu Ultra is the higher-performance model in Sakana AI's Fugu family. Rather than a single monolithic model, Fugu is a learned multi-agent orchestration system: a language model trained to route...
Mistral Medium 3.5 is a dense 128B instruction-following model from Mistral AI. It supports text and image inputs with text output, and is designed for agentic workflows, coding, and complex...
These variants are tracked but not compared here — one page per family keeps the comparison readable.
Mistral Medium 3.5 is open-weight and competitive on many tasks, but Fugu Ultra may still lead on the hardest reasoning and agentic work. The gap keeps narrowing — benchmark both on your actual use case before deciding.
Yes. Mistral Medium 3.5 has open weights, so you can self-host it on your own GPUs or run it via a low-cost API. Fugu Ultra is API-only and cannot be self-hosted.
Mistral Medium 3.5 costs $7.5/M output vs $30/M for Fugu Ultra — roughly 4x cheaper via API, and free if you self-host.
Choose Mistral Medium 3.5 if you want to self-host, keep your data private and skip per-token fees — it's open-weight and runs on your own hardware. Choose Fugu Ultra if you want frontier capability through a managed API with zero infrastructure to run.
Browse the full open-source model leaderboard, thousands of tools and live benchmarks — all in one place.
Open the leaderboard →