| Signal | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Delta | R1 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 67 | +17 | |
Pricing | 2 | 0 | |
Context window size | 81 | +5 | |
Recency | 94 | +37 | |
Output Capacity | 20 | -50 | |
Benchmarks | 0 | -80 | |
| Overall Result | 3 wins | of 6 | 3 wins |
15
days ranked higher
5
days
10
days ranked higher
Mistral AI
DeepSeek
Mistral Medium 3.1 saves you $55.00/month
That's $660.00/year compared to R1 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Mistral Medium 3.1 | R1 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 68 | 66 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
| Rank | #152 | #159 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
| Quality Rank | #152 | #159 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
| Adoption Rank | #152 | #159 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 131K | 64K | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
| Pricing | $0.40/$2.00/M | $0.70/$2.50/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 67 | 50 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
| Pricing | 2 | 3 | R1 |
| Context window size | 81 | 76 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
| Recency | 94 | 57 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
| Output Capacity | 20 | 70 | R1 |
| Benchmarks | -- | 80 | R1 |
Our composite score (0–100) combines six weighted signals: benchmark performance (25%), pricing efficiency (25%), context window size (15%), model recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and capability versatility (10%). Here's what the scores mean for these two models:
Scores 68/100 (rank #152), placing it in the top 48% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 66/100 (rank #159), placing it in the top 46% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 2-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal — your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
Mistral Medium 3.1 offers 25% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $36.00/month with Mistral Medium 3.1 vs $48.00/month with R1 — a $12.00 monthly difference.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Higher benchmark score (0/100) indicates stronger performance on coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Faster response time (speed score 0/100) is critical for user-facing chat. Mistral Medium 3.1 also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (131K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($2.00/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (68/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input — can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
Mistral Medium 3.1 and R1 are extremely close in overall performance (only 1.7999999999999972 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
Best for Quality
Mistral Medium 3.1
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Mistral Medium 3.1
25% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Mistral Medium 3.1
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Mistral Medium 3.1
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Mistral Medium 3.1
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Mistral AI
| Capability | Mistral Medium 3.1 | R1 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input)differs | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Modediffers | ||
| Reasoningdiffers | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Mistral AI
DeepSeek
Mistral Medium 3.1 saves you $1.14/month
That's 27% cheaper than R1 at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | Mistral Medium 3.1 | R1 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 131K | 64K |
| Max Output Tokens | -- | 16,000 |
| Open Source | No | Yes |
| Created | Aug 13, 2025 | Jan 20, 2025 |
Mistral Medium 3.1 scores 68/100 (rank #152) compared to R1's 66/100 (rank #159), giving it a 2-point advantage. Mistral Medium 3.1 is the stronger overall choice, though R1 may excel in specific areas like certain benchmarks.
Mistral Medium 3.1 is ranked #152 and R1 is ranked #159 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (25%), pricing (25%), context window (15%), recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and versatility (10%). Scores update hourly.
Mistral Medium 3.1 is cheaper at $2.00/M output tokens vs R1's $2.50/M output tokens — 1.3x more expensive. Input token pricing: Mistral Medium 3.1 at $0.40/M vs R1 at $0.70/M.
Mistral Medium 3.1 has a larger context window of 131,072 tokens compared to R1's 64,000 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.