Mistral Medium 3.5 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni
Mistral Medium 3.5 (2026) and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni (2026) are frontier reasoning models from MistralAI and NVIDIA AI. Mistral Medium 3.5 ships a 256k-token context window, while Nemotron 3 Nano Omni ships a 262k-token context window. On MMLU PRO, Mistral Medium 3.5 leads by 8 pts. This comparison covers specs, pricing, API access, capabilities, benchmarks, input and output token costs, and production fit for coding and agent workloads.
Mistral Medium 3.5 is safer overall; choose Nemotron 3 Nano Omni when long-context analysis matters.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Mistral Medium 3.5 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni |
|---|---|---|
| Best for | reasoning-heavy apps, multimodal apps, and tool-calling agents | multimodal apps |
| Decision fit | Coding, RAG, and Agents | Long context, Vision, and Classification |
| Context window | 256k | 262k |
| Cheapest output | $7.50/1M tokens | - |
| Provider routes | 3 tracked | 1 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | MMLU PRO leader | 1 rows |
Decision tradeoffs
- Mistral Medium 3.5 leads the largest shared benchmark signal on MMLU PRO by 8 points.
- Mistral Medium 3.5 has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- Mistral Medium 3.5 uniquely exposes Vision, Reasoning, and Function calling in local model data.
- Local decision data tags Mistral Medium 3.5 for Coding, RAG, and Agents.
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- Local decision data tags Nemotron 3 Nano Omni for Long context, Vision, and Classification.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.
Mistral Medium 3.5
$3,075
Cheapest tracked route/tier: Mistral AI Studio
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
Cost delta unavailable until both models have sourced input and output token prices.
Switch friction
- Provider overlap exists on OpenRouter; start route-level A/B tests there.
- Check replacement coverage for Vision, Reasoning, and Function calling before moving production traffic.
- Provider overlap exists on OpenRouter; start route-level A/B tests there.
- Mistral Medium 3.5 adds Vision, Reasoning, and Function calling in local capability data.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2026-04-29 | 2026-04-28 |
| Context window | 256k | 262k |
| Parameters | 128B | 30B |
| Architecture | decoder only | Hybrid Mamba-Transformer MoE |
| License | Mistral License | Open Source |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | - |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Mistral Medium 3.5 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $1.50/1M tokens | - |
| Output price | $7.50/1M tokens | - |
| Providers |
Capabilities
| Capability | Mistral Medium 3.5 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | Yes | No |
| Multimodal | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Function calling | Yes | No |
| Tool use | Yes | No |
| Structured outputs | Yes | No |
| Code execution | No | No |
| IDE integration | No | No |
| Computer use | No | No |
| Parallel agents | No | No |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Mistral Medium 3.5 | Nemotron 3 Nano Omni |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU PRO | 79.8 | 71.8 |
Deep dive
On shared benchmark coverage, MMLU PRO has Mistral Medium 3.5 at 79.8 and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni at 71.8, with Mistral Medium 3.5 ahead by 8 points. The largest visible gap is 8 points on MMLU PRO, which matters most when that benchmark mirrors your workload. Treat isolated benchmark wins as directional, because provider routing, prompt style, and tool access can move real application results.
The capability footprint differs most on vision: Mistral Medium 3.5, reasoning mode: Mistral Medium 3.5, function calling: Mistral Medium 3.5, tool use: Mistral Medium 3.5, and structured outputs: Mistral Medium 3.5. Both models share multimodal input, so the practical split is not just feature count. Use those differences to decide whether the page is about raw model quality, agentic coding support, multimodal ingestion, or predictable structured API behavior.
Pricing coverage is uneven: Mistral Medium 3.5 has $1.50/1M input tokens and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni has no token price sourced yet. Provider availability is 3 tracked routes versus 1. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.
Choose Mistral Medium 3.5 when reasoning depth and broader provider choice are central to the workload. Choose Nemotron 3 Nano Omni when long-context analysis and larger context windows are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship.
FAQ
Which has a larger context window, Mistral Medium 3.5 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni?
Nemotron 3 Nano Omni supports 262k tokens, while Mistral Medium 3.5 supports 256k tokens. That gap matters most for long documents, large codebases, retrieval-heavy agents, and conversations where earlier context must remain visible.
Is Mistral Medium 3.5 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni open source?
Mistral Medium 3.5 is listed under Mistral License. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni is listed under Open Source. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.
Which is better for vision, Mistral Medium 3.5 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni?
Mistral Medium 3.5 has the clearer documented vision signal in this comparison. If vision is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Which is better for multimodal input, Mistral Medium 3.5 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni?
Both Mistral Medium 3.5 and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni expose multimodal input. The better choice depends on benchmark fit, context budget, pricing, and whether your provider route exposes the same capability surface.
Which is better for reasoning mode, Mistral Medium 3.5 or Nemotron 3 Nano Omni?
Mistral Medium 3.5 has the clearer documented reasoning mode signal in this comparison. If reasoning mode is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Where can I run Mistral Medium 3.5 and Nemotron 3 Nano Omni?
Mistral Medium 3.5 is available on Mistral AI Studio, OpenRouter, and Vercel AI Gateway. Nemotron 3 Nano Omni is available on OpenRouter. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-05-22. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.