AI Models · Open-Source vs Paid

UNPareto 26.9 Paid vs Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch) Open

Pareto 26.9 vs Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch) 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.

UNPareto 26.9PaidUnbiased
$2.5 /M input
$7.5 /M outputManaged API (no infra to run)
TypeProprietary
Context window262K tokens
MultimodalYes
Self-hostNo
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
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 Pareto 26.9 if you want frontier capability through a managed API with zero infrastructure to run.

Pareto 26.9 vs Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch) specs

SpecPareto 26.9Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch)Winner
MakerUnbiasedMistral AI–
TypeProprietaryOpen-weightMistral Medium 3.5 (batch)
Context window262K tokens262K tokens= Tie
Input price$2.5/M$0.75/M · free self-hostMistral Medium 3.5 (batch)
Output price$7.5/M$3.75/M · free self-hostMistral Medium 3.5 (batch)
Vision / multimodalYesYes= Tie
Tool / function callingYesYes= Tie
Self-hostableNo (API only)YesMistral Medium 3.5 (batch)
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch)

Price gap & when to choose each

2.0×cheaper per output token

Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch) is ~2.0× cheaper than Pareto 26.9 on output tokens ($3.75 vs $7.5 per M tokens).

UNChoose Pareto 26.9 if…
  • You want frontier performance through a managed API
  • You value reliability & ecosystem
  • You don't want to manage infrastructure
Choose Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch) if…
  • You want to self-host or run on your cloud
  • You prioritize data privacy & control
  • You want the lowest operating costs
  • You are building open or reproducible AI

Feature comparison

CapabilityPareto 26.9Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch)
Open weights (downloadable)✗✓
Self-hostable✗✓
Runs fully offline✗✓
Vision / multimodal✓✓
Tool / function calling✓✓
1M+ context window✗✗

Benchmarks: Pareto 26.9 vs Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch)

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

Pareto 26.9
Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch)
Intelligence index
–
14.2
Coding index
–
46.9
GPQA
–
74.8%
Humanity's Last Exam
–
13.8%
Long Context Reasoning
–
69.3%
SciCode
–
40.2%
IFBench
–
68.8%
τ²-Bench
–
94.2%
τ-Bench Banking
–
15.1%
Terminal-Bench
–
50.6%
Terminal-Bench Hard
–
33.3%
Speed
–
174.8 tok/s
Latency
–
0.61s
Intelligence per $
–
4.7

Benchmark data by Artificial Analysis.

How Pareto 26.9 and Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch) score

🏆 Best value & openness: Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch) (4.6 vs 3.1 / 5)
CriterionPareto 26.9Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch)
Cost-efficiency4.04.0
Context window4.04.0
Openness1.55.0
Self-hosting1.05.0
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

Pareto 26.9 Paid

Unbiased · Proprietary

Pareto is a multimodal composite model built for research, coding, and agentic workflows, while delivering frontier-level performance across a broad range of general-purpose tasks.

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...

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 Large 4Mistral Medium 3.5Mistral Small 4Mistral Large 3 2512Mistral Medium 3.1Mistral Medium 3Devstral 2 2512Mistral Small 3.1 24BMistral Small 3.2 24BMistral LargeMistral Large 2407Mistral Small 3SabaMinistral 3 14B 2512Mixtral 8x22B InstructMinistral 3 8B 2512Ministral 3 3B 2512UncensoredCodestral 2508Voxtral Small 24B 2507Mistral Nemo

Frequently asked questions

Is Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch) as good as Pareto 26.9?

Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch) is open-weight and competitive on many tasks, but Pareto 26.9 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. Pareto 26.9 is API-only and cannot be self-hosted.

How much cheaper is Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch)?

Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch) costs $3.75/M output vs $7.5/M for Pareto 26.9 — roughly 2x cheaper via API, and free if you self-host.

Pareto 26.9 vs Mistral Medium 3.5 (batch) — 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 Pareto 26.9 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 →