GPT-5.1 Chat vs GPT-5.1 Codex mini vs Mistral Large 3
GPT-5.1 Codex mini comes out ahead, 59 to 50 and 38 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
OpenAIGPT-5.1 Chat
38/100- ECI—
- Price$1.25 / $10.00
- Context128K
- Our pickOpenAI
GPT-5.1 Codex mini
59/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $2.00
- Context400K
Mistral AIMistral Large 3
50/100- ECI—
- Price$0.50 / $1.50
- Context262K
GPT-5.1 Codex mini is our pick
GPT-5.1 Codex mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 59/100 against Mistral Large 3 (50) and GPT-5.1 Chat (38). It leads on price 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 priceGPT-5.1 Codex miniGPT-5.1 Codex mini $0.688 · Mistral Large 3 $0.75 · GPT-5.1 Chat $3.44 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGPT-5.1 Codex miniGPT-5.1 Codex mini 400,000 · Mistral Large 3 262,144 · GPT-5.1 Chat 128,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsGPT-5.1 Chat: Text, Images · GPT-5.1 Codex mini: Text, Images · Mistral Large 3: Text, Images
- Self-hostingMistral Large 3Publishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | GPT-5.1 Chat | GPT-5.1 Codex mini | Mistral Large 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 24 | 58 | 56 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 70 | 70 | 50 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 44 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 38/100 | 59/100 | 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 | GPT-5.1 ChatOpenAI | GPT-5.1 Codex miniOpenAI | Mistral Large 3Mistral AI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $1.25 | $0.25 (best) | $0.50 |
| Output | $10.00 | $2.00 | $1.50 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — | $0.05 |
| Blended (3:1) | $3.44 | $0.688 (best) | $0.75 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 2 providers | Median of 10 providers | Official Mistral API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 128,000 tokens | 400,000 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 16,384 tokens | 128,000 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | — | — | mistral-large-2512 |
| API providers | 2 | 10 | 13 (best) |
| Released | Nov 13, 2025 | Nov 13, 2025 | Dec 2, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Sep 30, 2024 | Sep 30, 2024 | Nov 2024 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- GPT-5.1 Chat$32.50
- GPT-5.1 Codex mini$6.50
- Mistral Large 3$8.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: GPT-5.1 Chat, GPT-5.1 Codex mini or Mistral Large 3?
GPT-5.1 Codex mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 59/100 against Mistral Large 3 (50) and GPT-5.1 Chat (38). It leads on price 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, GPT-5.1 Chat, GPT-5.1 Codex mini or Mistral Large 3?
GPT-5.1 Codex mini is cheaper at $0.25 input / $2.00 output per million tokens (median across 10 API providers). Mistral Large 3 costs $0.50 input / $1.50 output per million tokens (official Mistral API price); GPT-5.1 Chat costs $1.25 input / $10.00 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.688 per million tokens for GPT-5.1 Codex mini versus $0.75 for Mistral Large 3 (1.1× as much) and $3.44 for GPT-5.1 Chat (5× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. GPT-5.1 Chat has not been scored yet, GPT-5.1 Codex mini has not been scored yet and Mistral Large 3 has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GPT-5.1 Chat, GPT-5.1 Codex mini and Mistral Large 3 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?
GPT-5.1 Codex mini has the largest context window at 400,000 tokens, against 262,144 for Mistral Large 3 and 128,000 for GPT-5.1 Chat. Maximum output per response: GPT-5.1 Chat up to 16,384, GPT-5.1 Codex mini up to 128,000, Mistral Large 3 up to 262,144 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
GPT-5.1 Chat accepts text and images; GPT-5.1 Codex mini accepts text and images; Mistral Large 3 accepts text and images. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Mistral Large 3 publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; GPT-5.1 Chat and GPT-5.1 Codex mini is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Mistral Large 3 is the newest, released Dec 2, 2025. GPT-5.1 Chat came out Nov 13, 2025; GPT-5.1 Codex mini came out Nov 13, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: GPT-5.1 Chat Sep 30, 2024, GPT-5.1 Codex mini Sep 30, 2024, Mistral Large 3 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 Oct 4, 2026.
