GLM-4.5V vs Mistral Medium 3.5 vs Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct
GLM-4.5V comes out ahead, 49 to 42 and 39 on our weighted score.
- Our pick
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-4.5V
49/100- ECI—
- Price$0.60 / $1.80
- Context64K
Mistral AIMistral Medium 3.5
42/100- ECI141.4
- Price$1.50 / $7.50
- Context262K
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct
39/100- ECI—
- Price$0.50 / $2.00
- Context131K
GLM-4.5V is our pick
GLM-4.5V is the better all-round choice, scoring 49/100 against Mistral Medium 3.5 (42) and Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct (39). Mistral Medium 3.5 wins on 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 priceQwen3-Next 80B-A3B InstructQwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct $0.875 · GLM-4.5V $0.90 · Mistral Medium 3.5 $3.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextMistral Medium 3.5Mistral Medium 3.5 262,144 · Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct 131,072 · GLM-4.5V 64,000 tokens
- Widest inputsGLM-4.5VGLM-4.5V: Text, Images, Video · Mistral Medium 3.5: Text, Images · Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | GLM-4.5V | Mistral Medium 3.5 | Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 52 | 27 | 53 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 70 | 70 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 12 | 37 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 49/100 | 42/100 | 39/100 |
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 | GLM-4.5VZ.ai (Zhipu) | Mistral Medium 3.5Mistral AI | Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B InstructAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | 141.4 | — |
| ECI rank | — | #95 of 148 | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.60 | $1.50 | $0.50 (best) |
| Output | $1.80 (best) | $7.50 | $2.00 |
| Cached input | — | $0.15 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.90 | $3.00 | $0.875 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Z.AI API | Official Mistral API | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 64,000 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 16,384 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) | 32,768 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | Yes | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yeshigh | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Open | Open |
| API model ID | glm-4.5v | mistral-medium-2604 | qwen3-next-80b-a3b-instruct |
| API providers | 11 | 12 | 13 (best) |
| Released | Aug 11, 2025 | Apr 29, 2026 | Sep 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2025 | — | Apr 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- GLM-4.5V$9.60
- Mistral Medium 3.5$30.00
- Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct$9.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: GLM-4.5V, Mistral Medium 3.5 or Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct?
GLM-4.5V is the better all-round choice, scoring 49/100 against Mistral Medium 3.5 (42) and Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct (39). Mistral Medium 3.5 wins on 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, GLM-4.5V, Mistral Medium 3.5 or Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct?
Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct is cheaper at $0.50 input / $2.00 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). GLM-4.5V costs $0.60 input / $1.80 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price); Mistral Medium 3.5 costs $1.50 input / $7.50 output per million tokens (official Mistral API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.875 per million tokens for Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct versus $0.90 for GLM-4.5V (1× as much) and $3.00 for Mistral Medium 3.5 (3.4× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. GLM-4.5V has not been scored yet, Mistral Medium 3.5 has an ECI of 141.4 and Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-4.5V, Mistral Medium 3.5 and Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Mistral Medium 3.5 has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 131,072 for Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct and 64,000 for GLM-4.5V. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.5V up to 16,384, Mistral Medium 3.5 up to 262,144, Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
GLM-4.5V accepts text, images and video; Mistral Medium 3.5 accepts text and images; Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct accepts text. GLM-4.5V handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, all three publish their weights, so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Mistral Medium 3.5 is the newest, released Apr 29, 2026. Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct came out Sep 2025; GLM-4.5V came out Aug 11, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: GLM-4.5V Apr 2025, Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct Apr 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.
