LLM Reference

Mistral Medium 3 vs Nemotron 4 340B

Mistral Medium 3 (2025) and Nemotron 4 340B (2025) are compact production models from MistralAI and NVIDIA AI. Mistral Medium 3 ships a 128k-token context window, while Nemotron 4 340B ships a 4k-token context window. This comparison covers specs, pricing, API access, capabilities, benchmarks, input and output token costs, and production fit for coding and agent workloads. It focuses on practical selection signals rather than broad model-family marketing.

Mistral Medium 3 fits 32x more tokens; pick it for long-context work and Nemotron 4 340B for tighter calls.

Decision scorecard

Local evidence first
SignalMistral Medium 3Nemotron 4 340B
Best formultimodal apps and tool-calling agentsprovider-routed production
Decision fitCoding, RAG, and AgentsClassification and JSON / Tool use
Context window128k4k
Cheapest output-$4.20/1M tokens
Provider routes0 tracked2 tracked
Shared benchmarks0 rows0 rows

Decision tradeoffs

Choose Mistral Medium 3 when...
  • Mistral Medium 3 has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
  • Mistral Medium 3 uniquely exposes Vision, Multimodal, and Function calling in local model data.
  • Local decision data tags Mistral Medium 3 for Coding, RAG, and Agents.
Choose Nemotron 4 340B when...
  • Nemotron 4 340B has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
  • Local decision data tags Nemotron 4 340B for Classification and JSON / Tool use.

Monthly cost at traffic

Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.

Mistral Medium 3

Unavailable

No complete token price in local provider data

Nemotron 4 340B

$4,410

Cheapest tracked route/tier: DeepInfra

Cost delta unavailable until both models have sourced input and output token prices.

Switch friction

Mistral Medium 3 -> Nemotron 4 340B
  • No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Mistral Medium 3 and Nemotron 4 340B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
  • Check replacement coverage for Vision, Multimodal, and Function calling before moving production traffic.
Nemotron 4 340B -> Mistral Medium 3
  • No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Nemotron 4 340B and Mistral Medium 3; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
  • Mistral Medium 3 adds Vision, Multimodal, and Function calling in local capability data.

Specs

Specification
Released2025-05-012025-02-27
Context window128k4k
Parameters340B
Architecturedecoder onlydecoder only
LicenseProprietaryNVIDIA Open Model
OpennessProprietaryOpen weights
Commercial useCommercial use with conditionsCommercial use allowed
Knowledge cutoff2025-03-

Pricing and availability

Pricing attributeMistral Medium 3Nemotron 4 340B
Input price-$4.20/1M tokens
Output price-$4.20/1M tokens
Providers-

Capabilities

CapabilityMistral Medium 3Nemotron 4 340B
VisionYesNo
MultimodalYesNo
ReasoningNoNo
Function callingYesNo
Tool useYesNo
Structured outputsYesYes
Code executionYesNo
IDE integrationNoNo
Computer useNoNo
Parallel agentsNoNo

Benchmarks

No shared benchmark rows are currently sourced for this pair.

Deep dive

The capability footprint differs most on vision: Mistral Medium 3, multimodal input: Mistral Medium 3, function calling: Mistral Medium 3, tool use: Mistral Medium 3, and code execution: Mistral Medium 3. Both models share structured outputs, 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 has no token price sourced yet and Nemotron 4 340B has $4.20/1M input tokens. Provider availability is 0 tracked routes versus 2. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.

Choose Mistral Medium 3 when coding workflow support and larger context windows are central to the workload. Choose Nemotron 4 340B when provider fit and broader provider choice are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship. This keeps the decision grounded in measurable tradeoffs instead of brand-level assumptions. It also helps separate model capability from provider packaging, which can change cost and latency.

FAQ

Which has a larger context window, Mistral Medium 3 or Nemotron 4 340B?

Mistral Medium 3 supports 128k tokens, while Nemotron 4 340B supports 4k 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 or Nemotron 4 340B open source?

Mistral Medium 3 is listed under Proprietary. Nemotron 4 340B is listed under NVIDIA Open Model. 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 or Nemotron 4 340B?

Mistral Medium 3 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 or Nemotron 4 340B?

Mistral Medium 3 has the clearer documented multimodal input signal in this comparison. If multimodal input is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.

Which is better for function calling, Mistral Medium 3 or Nemotron 4 340B?

Mistral Medium 3 has the clearer documented function calling signal in this comparison. If function calling 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 and Nemotron 4 340B?

Mistral Medium 3 is available on the tracked providers still being sourced. Nemotron 4 340B is available on NVIDIA NIM and DeepInfra. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.

Continue comparing

Last reviewed: 2026-05-19. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.