AI Models · Open-Source vs Paid

Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch) Open vs Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite Paid

Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch) vs Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite 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.

Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch)OpenMistral AI
$0.75 /M input
$3.75 /M outputNo per-token fees if you self-host
TypeOpen-weight
Context window262K tokens
MultimodalYes
Self-hostYes
Gemini 3.5 Flash LitePaidGoogle
$0.3 /M input
$2.5 /M outputManaged API (no infra to run)
TypeProprietary
Context window1M tokens
MultimodalYes
Self-hostNo
Choose Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch) 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 Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite if you want frontier capability through a managed API with zero infrastructure to run.

Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch) vs Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite specs

SpecMistral Medium 3.5 (batch)Gemini 3.5 Flash LiteWinner
MakerMistral AIGoogle
TypeOpen-weightProprietaryMistral Medium 3.5 (batch)
Context window262K tokens1M tokensGemini 3.5 Flash Lite
Input price$0.75/M · free self-host$0.3/MGemini 3.5 Flash Lite
Output price$3.75/M · free self-host$2.5/MGemini 3.5 Flash Lite
Vision / multimodalYesYes= Tie
Tool / function callingYesYes= Tie
Self-hostableYesNo (API only)Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch)
LicenseApache 2.0ProprietaryMistral Medium 3.5 (batch)

Price gap & when to choose each

1.5×cheaper per output token

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is ~1.5× cheaper than Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch) on output tokens ($2.5 vs $3.75 per M tokens).

Choose Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch) if…
  • You want to self-host or run on your cloud
  • You prioritize data privacy & control
  • You are building open or reproducible AI
Choose Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite if…
  • You want frontier performance through a managed API
  • You need the longer 1M context window
  • You want the lower output price
  • You value reliability & ecosystem
  • You don't want to manage infrastructure

Feature comparison

CapabilityMistral Medium 3.5 (batch)Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
Open weights (downloadable)
Self-hostable
Runs fully offline
Vision / multimodal
Tool / function calling
1M+ context window

Benchmarks: Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch) vs Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite

Independent benchmark scores measured by Artificial Analysis. Higher is better (except latency).

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite delivers 5.3× more intelligence per dollar.
Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch)
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
Intelligence index
14.9
22.7
Coding index
46.9
49.3
GPQA
74.8%
83.8%
Humanity's Last Exam
13.8%
18.8%
Long Context Reasoning
69.3%
76%
SciCode
40.2%
41.3%
IFBench
68.8%
τ²-Bench
94.2%
τ-Bench Banking
15.1%
17.5%
Terminal-Bench
50.6%
53.6%
Terminal-Bench Hard
33.3%
Speed
142.2 tok/s
345 tok/s
Latency
0.74s
7.71s
Intelligence per $
5
26.7

Benchmark data by Artificial Analysis.

How Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch) and Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite score

🏆 Best value & openness: Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch) (4.6 vs 3.4 / 5)
CriterionMistral Medium 3.5 (batch)Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite
Cost-efficiency4.04.5
Context window4.05.0
Openness5.01.5
Self-hosting5.01.0
Multimodality5.05.0

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.

What each model is

Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch) Open

Mistral AI · Open-weight

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...

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite Paid

Google · Proprietary

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is a high-efficiency model from Google with upgraded agentic capabilities. It is suited for subagents that execute focused tasks within complex, multi-agent workflows.

Other models in these families

These variants are tracked but not compared here — one page per family keeps the comparison readable.

Other variants tracked
Mistral Medium 3.5Mistral Small 4Mistral Small 4 (batch)Mistral Medium 3.1Mistral Medium 3.1 (batch)Mistral Large 3 2512Mistral Large 3 2512 (batch)Devstral 2 2512Mistral Medium 3Mistral Small 3.1 24BMistral Small 3.2 24BMistral LargeMistral Large 2407Mistral Small 3SabaMinistral 3 14B 2512Mixtral 8x22B InstructMinistral 3 8B 2512Ministral 3 8B 2512 (batch)Ministral 3 3B 2512UncensoredCodestral 2508Codestral 2508 (batch)Voxtral Small 24B 2507Mistral Nemo
Other variants tracked
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite (batch)Gemini 3.1 Flash LiteGemini 3.1 Flash Lite (batch)Gemini 2.5 Flash LiteGemini 2.5 Flash Lite (batch)Nano Banana 2 Lite (Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image)

Frequently asked questions

Is Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch) as good as Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite?

Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch) is open-weight and competitive on many tasks, but Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite may still lead on the hardest reasoning and agentic work. The gap keeps narrowing — benchmark both on your actual use case before deciding.

Can I run Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch) locally?

Yes. Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch) has open weights, so you can self-host it on your own GPUs or run it via a low-cost API. Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is API-only and cannot be self-hosted.

Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch) vs Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite — which should I pick in 2026?

Choose Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch) 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 Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite if you want frontier capability through a managed API with zero infrastructure to run.

People also compare

Explore more open-source AI

Browse the full open-source model leaderboard, thousands of tools and live benchmarks — all in one place.

Open the leaderboard →