Claude Opus 4.1 vs Mistral Medium 3.1
Compare Claude Opus 4.1 and Mistral Medium 3.1 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, OCR, and Image Captioning.
Compare Claude Opus 4.1 vs Mistral Medium 3.1 live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Claude Opus 4.1 vs Mistral Medium 3.1: Overview
Claude 4.1 Opus, released by Anthropic in August 2025, is the upgraded flagship of the Claude 4 family, building on Opus 4 with stronger reasoning and agentic capabilities. Like its predecessor, it is multimodal and optimized for text, code, and tool use, with support for large context windows suited to multi-file codebases, technical workflows, and long-horizon problem solving.
On benchmarks, Opus 4.1 improves coding performance, reaching ~74.5% on SWE-Bench Verified compared to Opus 4’s ~72.5%. It demonstrates more precise debugging, refactoring, and orchestration of agentic tasks while maintaining similar safety and alignment safeguards. It is best suited for enterprise-scale software development, research automation, and advanced reasoning workflows where reliability and depth of analysis are critical.
Mistral Medium 3.1, released in August 2025 as the mistral-medium-2508 update, is a proprietary frontier model from Mistral AI positioned between smaller open models and high-end closed LLMs. It is multimodal, handling both text and image inputs, with a context window of ~128K tokens.
Compared to Mistral Medium 3.0, the 3.1 release introduces improvements in reasoning, coding, STEM, and enterprise workflows, along with better tone control for conversational and business applications. It is designed for scalable enterprise deployments, including hybrid cloud and on-premises VPC setups. As part of Mistral’s Premier line, Medium 3.1 is a commercial-only offering: while it delivers strong accuracy and performance, trade-offs include higher costs than open-weight models, restricted fine-tuning access, and increased latency/cost for very large contexts.
Claude Opus 4.1 vs Mistral Medium 3.1 Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Opus 4.1 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Mistral |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2025 | Aug 2025 |
| Context Window | 200K | 128K |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $15.00 | $0.400 |
| Output $/1M | $75.00 | $2.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 59.7% | |
| Avg Response Time | 7.09s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.0K | |
| Median output tokens | 140 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.040 | |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | |
| Object Counting | 0%(0/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 64.3%(9/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 63.2%(12/19) | |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology