GPT-5 Nano vs Mistral Small 3.1 24B
Compare GPT-5 Nano and Mistral Small 3.1 24B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.
Compare GPT-5 Nano vs Mistral Small 3.1 24B 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
GPT-5 Nano vs Mistral Small 3.1 24B: Overview
GPT-5 Nano, released by OpenAI on August 7, 2025, is the smallest and most cost-efficient model in the GPT-5 family. Like its larger counterparts, it is multimodal—accepting text and images, supporting tool use, structured outputs, and reasoning—but it is optimized for speed, low latency, and affordability. It features input and output token limits of roughly 272K and 128K tokens respectively, enabling large-context processing even at its compact scale. Its knowledge cutoff is around May 2024, slightly earlier than the full GPT-5 model.
GPT-5 Nano is well-suited for high-volume or cost-sensitive deployments such as mobile apps, embedded AI systems, or rapid-response APIs. While it offers less depth on complex reasoning and coding tasks compared to GPT-5 Mini or Pro, it retains core multimodal and agentic capabilities, making it an attractive option where efficiency and scale matter more than maximum performance.
Mistral Small 3.1 24B, released on March 17, 2025, is an open-weight multimodal model from Mistral AI, distributed under the Apache-2.0 license. With around 24B parameters and a 128K token context window, it is available in both base and instruction-tuned (“Instruct”) variants. The model introduces vision support alongside text, enabling tasks like multimodal reasoning, captioning, and image-based Q&A.
It is multilingual, supporting many languages, and is optimized for fast responses, function calling, structured dialogue, and long-context reasoning. Despite its size, the model can be run locally in quantized formats, fitting on machines with ~32GB RAM, making it accessible to developers outside large cloud setups. However, the output length is smaller than the 128K input window, meaning long generations may require chaining. In addition, using full vision features or the maximum context window significantly increases compute costs, and performance on highly complex reasoning or enterprise-scale tasks still trails larger proprietary frontier models.
GPT-5 Nano vs Mistral Small 3.1 24B Comparison Table
| Property | GPT-5 Nano | Mistral Small 3.1 24B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | Mistral |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2025 | Mar 2025 |
| Context Window | 400K | 128K |
| Parameters | 24B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.050 | $0.351 |
| Output $/1M | $0.400 | $0.555 |
| 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% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 58.21% | |
| Avg Response Time | 6.58s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.8K | |
| Median output tokens | 591 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0003 | |
| Defect Detection | 86.7%(13/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 66.7%(6/9) | |
| Object Counting | 0%(0/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 64.3%(9/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 57.9%(11/19) | |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 69% | |
| Avg Response Time | 6.15s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 122 | |
| Median output tokens | 539 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0002 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 64.6%(64/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 40%(4/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 83.3%(25/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 70%(21/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 73.3%(44/60) | |
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