ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Gemma 3 4B IT vs Claude Haiku 3.5 vs Mistral Large 2.1

Gemma 3 4B IT comes out ahead, 52 to 46 and 38 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Our pick

    Google

    Gemma 3 4B IT

    Released Mar 12, 2025

    52/100
    • ECI115.8
    • Price$0.05 / $0.10
    • Context131K
  2. Anthropic

    Claude Haiku 3.5

    Released Oct 22, 2024

    46/100
    • ECI127.0
    • Price$0.80 / $4.00
    • Context200K
  3. Mistral AI

    Mistral Large 2.1

    Released Nov 18, 2024

    38/100
    • ECI128.6
    • Price$2.00 / $6.00
    • Context131K
01 — Verdict

Gemma 3 4B IT is our pick

Gemma 3 4B IT is the better all-round choice, scoring 52/100 against Claude Haiku 3.5 (46) and Mistral Large 2.1 (38). It leads on price. Claude Haiku 3.5 wins on inputs & features and context window. Mistral Large 2.1 wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityMistral Large 2.1Capabilities Index (ECI): Mistral Large 2.1 128.6 · Claude Haiku 3.5 127.0 · Gemma 3 4B IT 115.8
  • Lowest priceGemma 3 4B ITGemma 3 4B IT $0.063 · Claude Haiku 3.5 $1.60 · Mistral Large 2.1 $3.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextClaude Haiku 3.5Claude Haiku 3.5 200,000 · Gemma 3 4B IT 131,072 · Mistral Large 2.1 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsClaude Haiku 3.5Gemma 3 4B IT: Text, Images · Claude Haiku 3.5: Text, Images, PDFs · Mistral Large 2.1: Text
  • Self-hostingGemma 3 4B IT and Mistral Large 2.1Publishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGemma 3 4B ITClaude Haiku 3.5Mistral Large 2.1
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%344850
Price25%1003826
Inputs & features15%506025
Context window10%253225
Overall100%52/10046/10038/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Gemma 3 4B IT vs Claude Haiku 3.5 vs Mistral Large 2.1 specifications side by side
SpecificationGemma 3 4B ITGoogleClaude Haiku 3.5AnthropicMistral Large 2.1Mistral AI
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)115.8127.0128.6 (best)
ECI rank#163 of 165#147 of 165#142 of 165 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions23.2%38.1%51.3% (best)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics7.5%4.3%7.8% (best)
Price per million tokens
Input$0.05 (best)$0.80$2.00
Output$0.10 (best)$4.00$6.00
Cached input———
Blended (3:1)$0.063 (best)$1.60$3.00
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 9 providersMedian of 3 providersMedian of 2 providers
Limits
Context window131,072 tokens200,000 tokens (best)131,072 tokens
Max output131,072 tokens (best)8,192 tokens16,384 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesYesNo
PDFsNoYesNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoNoNoNo
ReasoningNoNoNo
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputNoNoNo
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietaryOpen
API model ID———
API providers10 (best)42
ReleasedMar 12, 2025Oct 22, 2024Nov 18, 2024
Knowledge cutoffAug 2024Jul 31, 2024Nov 2024
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Gemma 3 4B IT$0.70
  • Claude Haiku 3.5$16.00
  • Mistral Large 2.1$32.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Gemma 3 4B IT, Claude Haiku 3.5 or Mistral Large 2.1?

Gemma 3 4B IT is the better all-round choice, scoring 52/100 against Claude Haiku 3.5 (46) and Mistral Large 2.1 (38). It leads on price. Claude Haiku 3.5 wins on inputs & features and context window. Mistral Large 2.1 wins on capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 3 4B IT, Claude Haiku 3.5 or Mistral Large 2.1?

Gemma 3 4B IT is cheaper at $0.05 input / $0.10 output per million tokens (median across 9 API providers). Claude Haiku 3.5 costs $0.80 input / $4.00 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers); Mistral Large 2.1 costs $2.00 input / $6.00 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.063 per million tokens for Gemma 3 4B IT versus $1.60 for Claude Haiku 3.5 (26× as much) and $3.00 for Mistral Large 2.1 (48× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Mistral Large 2.1 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Mistral Large 2.1 128.6 (#142 of 165), Claude Haiku 3.5 127.0 (#147 of 165) and Gemma 3 4B IT 115.8 (#163 of 165). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (124.3–130.7 vs 121.4–129.2), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Mistral Large 2.1 51.3%, Claude Haiku 3.5 38.1%, Gemma 3 4B IT 23.2%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Mistral Large 2.1 7.8%, Gemma 3 4B IT 7.5%, Claude Haiku 3.5 4.3%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemma 3 4B IT, Claude Haiku 3.5 and Mistral Large 2.1 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Mistral Large 2.1 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Haiku 3.5 has the largest context window at 200,000 tokens, against 131,072 for Gemma 3 4B IT and 131,072 for Mistral Large 2.1. Maximum output per response: Gemma 3 4B IT up to 131,072, Claude Haiku 3.5 up to 8,192, Mistral Large 2.1 up to 16,384 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Gemma 3 4B IT accepts text and images; Claude Haiku 3.5 accepts text, images and PDFs; Mistral Large 2.1 accepts text. Claude Haiku 3.5 handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Gemma 3 4B IT and Mistral Large 2.1 publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Claude Haiku 3.5 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Gemma 3 4B IT is the newest, released Mar 12, 2025. Mistral Large 2.1 came out Nov 18, 2024; Claude Haiku 3.5 came out Oct 22, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Gemma 3 4B IT Aug 2024, Claude Haiku 3.5 Jul 31, 2024, Mistral Large 2.1 Nov 2024.

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 Nov 2, 2026.