GPT-6.1 Terra vs Mistral Large 4
GPT-6.1 Terra and Mistral Large 4 score 85.8% vs 56.8% averaged across five Vision Evals tasks (#2 and #43 of 65 models), so GPT-6.1 Terra leads overall.
- GPT-6.1 Terra wins all 5 tasks, with its widest lead on reasoning (85.4% vs 38.9%).
- GPT-6.1 Terra is about half the cost: $0.0033 vs $0.0065 overall average cost per sample.
- GPT-6.1 Terra is faster: 10.1s vs 31.2s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare GPT-6.1 Terra vs Mistral Large 4 live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
GPT-6.1 Terra vs Mistral Large 4 on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
GPT-6.1 Terra vs Mistral Large 4 Comparison Table
Evals updated October 26, 2026Pricing updated October 27, 2026
| Property | GPT-6.1 Terra | Mistral Large 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | Mistral |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Oct 2026 | Oct 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.1M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | undisclosed | 1.05T total, 49B active |
| License | Proprietary | Custom |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | See license terms |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.00 | $1.36 |
| Output $/1M | $5.00 | $4.18 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Supported | Demo |
| Classification | Supported | Demo |
| Object Detection | Supported | Demo |
| OCR | Supported | Demo |
| Visual Question Answering | Supported | Demo |
| Phrase Grounding | Not listed | Supported |
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 85.8% | 56.8% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0033 | $0.0065 |
| Avg speed / sample | 10.05s | 31.23s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 84.7% ±0.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.7 to 84.8 | 59.3% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 58.5 to 60.0 |
| Object Detection (high) | 84.7% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.2 to 84.9 | 50.2% ±2.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.0 to 53.0 |
| Counting (low) | 80.2% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4 | 54.5% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.0 to 55.4 |
| Counting (high) | 84.2% ±3.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 87.8 | 63.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 64.9 |
| Identification (low) | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 | 85.4% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5 |
| Identification (high) | 96.9% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 96.9 | 85.4% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5 |
| OCR (low) | 81.9% | 46.1% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | 84.4% | 54.5% |
| by category |
|
|
| Reasoning (low) | 85.4% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.4 to 86.8 | 38.9% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 38.4 to 39.1 |
| Reasoning (high) | 87.0% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 85.4 to 88.1 | 57.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 55.6 to 59.6 |
GPT-6.1 Terra vs Mistral Large 4: Overview
GPT-6.1 Terra is an OpenAI model released on October 26, 2026 for visual reasoning, computer use and writing. It accepts text and image inputs and produces text, with a 1,050,000-token context window and up to 128,000 output tokens. OpenAI lists applications including matching product photographs to catalog entries, interpreting technical drawings and operating application screens.
The API exposes six reasoning effort settings: none, low, medium, high, xhigh and max. Medium is the default. The model supports structured outputs and tool calling through the Responses API. Vision Evals reports its Low and High results for text understanding, counting, identification, reasoning and object detection, using native OpenAI API inference. Terra is a proprietary model; its weights are not released.
Mistral Large 4, nicknamed Le Chonk, is a natively multimodal mixture-of-experts model from Mistral that accepts interleaved text and image input and produces text output. It uses a granular MoE design with roughly 1.05 trillion total parameters and 49 billion active per token, reported as 52 billion when embeddings and output layers are counted, paired with a 1.6 billion parameter vision encoder and a context window of one million tokens. The model is trained from scratch on about 3,800 NVIDIA Grace Blackwell GPUs in Mistral's European data centers and supports more than 160 languages. It behaves as a hybrid instruct and reasoning system, with a reasoning effort setting that selects between direct answers and longer deliberation, alongside function calling and structured output for agentic workflows.
Image understanding is a focus of this generation, covering documents, charts, technical drawings and natural scenes, and the model emits bounding box coordinates for visual grounding queries. Reported grounding results include 42 percent on Dense200 and 73 percent on the DIOR-RSVG remote sensing benchmark. Mistral describes agentic vision workflows in which the model zooms into gigapixel satellite imagery or engineering drawings to verify details, and reports coding results such as 62 percent on DeepSWE. Figures published at preview time are preliminary because the reinforcement learning phase is still in progress.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, GPT-6.1 Terra performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 85.8% (#2 of 65) against 56.8% (#43 of 65) for Mistral Large 4. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, GPT-6.1 Terra leads with 85.4% against 38.9%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
GPT-6.1 Terra is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0033 per sample against $0.0065. GPT-6.1 Terra is priced at $1.00 per 1M input tokens and $5.00 per 1M output; Mistral Large 4 is priced at $1.36 per 1M input tokens and $4.18 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
GPT-6.1 Terra is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 10.1s per inference against 31.2s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.