Mistral Medium 3 vs Swallow 30B
Mistral Medium 3 (2025) and Swallow 30B (2025) are compact production models from MistralAI and Tokyo Institute of Technology. Mistral Medium 3 ships a 128K-token context window, while Swallow 30B ships a 16K-token context window. This comparison covers specs, pricing, capabilities, benchmarks, provider availability, and production fit. It focuses on practical selection signals rather than broad model-family marketing. The goal is to make the tradeoff clear before deeper testing.
Mistral Medium 3 fits 8x more tokens; pick it for long-context work and Swallow 30B for tighter calls.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Mistral Medium 3 | Swallow 30B |
|---|---|---|
| Decision fit | Coding, RAG, and Agents | General |
| Context window | 128K | 16K |
| Cheapest output | - | - |
| Provider routes | 0 tracked | 0 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 0 rows | 0 rows |
Decision tradeoffs
- 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.
- Use Swallow 30B when your own prompt tests beat the comparison signals; the local data does not show a decisive standalone advantage yet.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output prices on this page.
Mistral Medium 3
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
Swallow 30B
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
Cost delta unavailable until both models have sourced input and output token prices.
Switch friction
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Mistral Medium 3 and Swallow 30B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Check replacement coverage for Vision, Multimodal, and Function calling before moving production traffic.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Swallow 30B 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 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2025-05-01 | 2025-02-14 |
| Context window | 128K | 16K |
| Parameters | — | 30B |
| Architecture | decoder only | - |
| License | Proprietary | Open Source |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | - |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Mistral Medium 3 | Swallow 30B |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | - | - |
| Output price | - | - |
| Providers | - | - |
Pricing not yet sourced for either model.
Capabilities
| Capability | Mistral Medium 3 | Swallow 30B |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | Yes | No |
| Multimodal | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Function calling | Yes | No |
| Tool use | Yes | No |
| Structured outputs | Yes | No |
| Code execution | Yes | No |
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, structured outputs: Mistral Medium 3, and code execution: Mistral Medium 3. Both models share the core language-model surface, 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 Swallow 30B has no token price sourced yet. Provider availability is 0 tracked routes versus 0. 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 Swallow 30B when provider fit 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.
FAQ
Which has a larger context window, Mistral Medium 3 or Swallow 30B?
Mistral Medium 3 supports 128K tokens, while Swallow 30B supports 16K 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 Swallow 30B open source?
Mistral Medium 3 is listed under Proprietary. Swallow 30B 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 or Swallow 30B?
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 Swallow 30B?
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 Swallow 30B?
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.
When should I pick Mistral Medium 3 over Swallow 30B?
Mistral Medium 3 fits 8x more tokens; pick it for long-context work and Swallow 30B for tighter calls. If your workload also depends on coding workflow support, start with Mistral Medium 3; if it depends on provider fit, run the same evaluation with Swallow 30B.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-05-05. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.