Apertus 70B vs Mistral Medium 3.1
Mistral Medium 3.1 comes out ahead, 50 to 33 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Swiss AI
Apertus 70B
33/100- ECI—
- Price$0.82 / $2.42
- Context66K
- Our pick
Mistral AIMistral Medium 3.1
50/100- ECI—
- Price$0.40 / $2.00
- Context262K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Mistral Medium 3.1 is our pick
Mistral Medium 3.1 is the better all-round choice, scoring 50/100 against Apertus 70B (33). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceMistral Medium 3.1Mistral Medium 3.1 $0.80 · Apertus 70B $1.22 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMistral Medium 3.1Mistral Medium 3.1 262,144 · Apertus 70B 65,536 tokens
- Widest inputsMistral Medium 3.1Apertus 70B: Text · Mistral Medium 3.1: Text, Images
- Self-hostingApertus 70BPublishes downloadable weights (Apache-2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Apertus 70B | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 46 | 54 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 50 |
| Context window | 20% | 12 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 33/100 | 50/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Apertus 70BSwiss AI | Mistral Medium 3.1Mistral AI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.82 | $0.40 (best) |
| Output | $2.42 | $2.00 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.22 | $0.80 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 3 providers | Official Mistral API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 65,536 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenApache-2.0 | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | mistral-medium-2508 |
| API providers | 3 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Sep 2, 2025 | Aug 12, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Sep 2025 | May 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Apertus 70B$13.04
- Mistral Medium 3.1$8.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Apertus 70B or Mistral Medium 3.1?
Mistral Medium 3.1 is the better all-round choice, scoring 50/100 against Apertus 70B (33). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Apertus 70B or Mistral Medium 3.1?
Mistral Medium 3.1 is cheaper at $0.40 input / $2.00 output per million tokens (official Mistral API price). Apertus 70B costs $0.82 input / $2.42 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.80 per million tokens for Mistral Medium 3.1 versus $1.22 for Apertus 70B (1.5× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Apertus 70B has not been scored yet and Mistral Medium 3.1 has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Apertus 70B and Mistral Medium 3.1 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Mistral Medium 3.1 has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 65,536 for Apertus 70B. Maximum output per response: Apertus 70B up to 8,192, Mistral Medium 3.1 up to 262,144 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Apertus 70B accepts text; Mistral Medium 3.1 accepts text and images. Mistral Medium 3.1 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Apertus 70B publishes its weights (Apache-2.0) and can be self-hosted; Mistral Medium 3.1 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Apertus 70B is the newest, released Sep 2, 2025. Mistral Medium 3.1 came out Aug 12, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Apertus 70B Sep 2025, Mistral Medium 3.1 May 2025.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Qwen3 VL 235B A22B ThinkingThree-way comparison
- Apertus 70B vs Qwen3 VL 235B A22B ThinkingAlibaba (Qwen)
- Apertus 70B vs GLM-4.6Z.ai (Zhipu)
- Apertus 70B vs Ling-1TinclusionAI
- Mistral Medium 3.1 vs GLM-4.5VZ.ai (Zhipu)
- Mistral Medium 3.1 vs Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B InstructAlibaba (Qwen)
- Mistral Medium 3.1 vs Ling-1TinclusionAI
