Claude Opus 4 vs Mistral Small 3 (Non-Reasoning)
Wins 4 of 5 areas
Coding · Reasoning · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 1 of 5 areas
Facts
Claude Opus 4 is the stronger all-rounder.Mistral Small 3 (Non-Reasoning) is cheaper and better at facts.
Scores updated · 17 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the five areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking20Claude Opus 42 of 2 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software10Claude Opus 41 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Opus 41 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10Claude Opus 41 of 1 test
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up01Mistral Small 3 (Non-Reasoning)1 of 1 test
Coding, facts, long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
Mistral Small 3 (Non-Reasoning) costs 100% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Claude Opus 4 pulls ahead
- Graduate-level biology, physics and chemistry questionsGPQA Diamond+33.4points ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+27.3points ahead
- Code for real scientific research problemsSciCode+16.2points ahead
Where Mistral Small 3 (Non-Reasoning) pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 17 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
ReasoningClaude Opus 4
- GPQA DiamondClaude Opus 4 by 33.479.646.2+33.4
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Opus 4 by 8.512.33.8+8.5
FactsMistral Small 3 (Non-Reasoning)
- Vectara HHEM hallucination ratelower is betterMistral Small 3 (Non-Reasoning) by 6.9125.1+6.9
Following instructionsClaude Opus 4
- IFBenchClaude Opus 4 by 27.353.726.4+27.3
Other results11 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Claude Opus 4 by 53.873.419.6+53.8
- AIR-Bench 2024Claude Opus 4 by 52.985.732.8+52.9
- HarmBenchClaude Opus 4 by 46.591.745.2+46.5
- AA IntelligenceClaude Opus 4 by 13.920.66.7+13.9
- vectara_answer_rateMistral Small 3 (Non-Reasoning) by 6.99197.9+6.9
- vectara_factual_consistencyMistral Small 3 (Non-Reasoning) by 6.98894.9+6.9
- simple_safety_testsClaude Opus 4 by 6.710093.3+6.7
- bbqClaude Opus 4 by 3.897.193.3+3.8
- anthropic_red_teamClaude Opus 4 by 2.598.996.4+2.5
- vectara_avg_summary_lengthClaude Opus 4 by 24.4 rating points123.298.8+24.4 rating
- XSTestClaude Opus 4 by 1.79795.3+1.7
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Opus 4 or Mistral Small 3 (Non-Reasoning)?
Claude Opus 4 wins four of the five areas where both have results: coding, reasoning, long documents and following instructions. Mistral Small 3 (Non-Reasoning) wins facts, and costs 100% less.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Opus 4. It wins the one coding test both models report.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Opus 4 costs $15.00 per million input tokens and $75.00 per million output tokens; Mistral Small 3 (Non-Reasoning) costs $0.05 and $0.08. That makes Mistral Small 3 (Non-Reasoning) about 100% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 17 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 6 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 11 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.