Pick Llama 4 Scout for largest advertised context (10m) or open weights, single-gpu friendly. Pick Mistral Medium 3 for strong cost-to-capability at $0.40/$2.00 or general reasoning, coding and multimodal tasks. Choose Llama 4 Scout if you need self-hosting or data privacy; Mistral Medium 3 if you want a managed API.
Llama 4 Scout (Meta, US) and Mistral Medium 3 (Mistral AI, France) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. Llama 4 Scout is the 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller. Mistral Medium 3 is mistral's mid-tier model at $0.40/$2.00 — efficient general capability with a 128K window, below the 1M-context frontier tier. They diverge most on price, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences
Cost model: Llama 4 Scout ships open weights you can self-host (hardware cost only, no per-token fee), while Mistral Medium 3 is API-metered at $0.4/$2 per 1M tokens. Your choice depends on whether you want zero marginal cost at the price of running infrastructure.
Context window: Llama 4 Scout holds 78× more — 10M (~15,000 pages) vs 128K (~192 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
Recency: Mistral Medium 3 is the newer model by about 32 days (released May 7, 2025), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Ecosystem: this is a US-vs-France matchup — they differ in pricing philosophy, data-residency options, and tooling ecosystems, not only benchmarks.
Specifications
Spec
Llama 4 Scout
Mistral Medium 3
Provider
Meta (US)
Mistral AI (France)
Released
April 2025
May 7, 2025
Context window
10M (~15,000 pages)
128K (~192 pages)
Price (in/out)
Open weight (self-host / free)
$0.4/$2 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
Yes — self-hostable
No — API only
Modalities
text, image, code
text, image, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
15%
Not published
Who wins what
Largest advertised context (10M): Llama 4 Scout — Its 10M window holds about 78× more than Mistral Medium 3's 128K in a single prompt.
Open weights, single-GPU friendly: Llama 4 Scout — Open weights make this possible at all — Mistral Medium 3 is API-only, so it cannot leave the vendor's servers.
Self-hosted, data-private deployment: Llama 4 Scout — The 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller — and it carries the larger 10M context.
Strong cost-to-capability at $0.40/$2.00: Mistral Medium 3 — Mistral's mid-tier model at $0.40/$2.00 — efficient general capability with a 128K window, below the 1M-context frontier tier — and it is the newer of the two.
General reasoning, coding and multimodal tasks: Mistral Medium 3 — Llama 4 Scout is comparatively weak here — ~15% on long-context multi-needle reasoning
Efficient mid-tier deployment for production workloads: Mistral Medium 3 — Mistral Medium 3 lists efficient mid-tier deployment for production workloads among its strengths; Llama 4 Scout does not.
Lowest cost at scale: Llama 4 Scout — Its weights are open, so at volume you pay for your own hardware instead of Mistral Medium 3's $0.4/$2 per 1M tokens.
Largest single-prompt input: Llama 4 Scout — Its 10M window is about 78× larger than Mistral Medium 3's 128K, fitting roughly 15,000 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume: Llama 4 Scout — At Open weight (self-host / free) it undercuts Mistral Medium 3, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases: Llama 4 Scout — Larger 10M window fits more in one prompt.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs: Llama 4 Scout — Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; Mistral Medium 3 is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is largest advertised context (10m): Llama 4 Scout — It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is strong cost-to-capability at $0.40/$2.00: Mistral Medium 3 — That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules: Llama 4 Scout or Mistral Medium 3 — Origin (US vs France) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.
Llama 4 Scout: where it fits
The 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller. Released April 2025 by Meta, it is built for largest advertised context (10M), open weights, single-GPU friendly, self-hosted, data-private deployment, and retrieval over very long inputs.
Its trade-offs are real: effective recall degrades far below 10M, and ~15% on long-context multi-needle reasoning. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.
Mistral Medium 3: where it fits
Mistral's mid-tier model at $0.40/$2.00 — efficient general capability with a 128K window, below the 1M-context frontier tier. Released May 7, 2025 by Mistral AI, it is built for strong cost-to-capability at $0.40/$2.00, general reasoning, coding and multimodal tasks, efficient mid-tier deployment for production workloads, and text and image input.
Its trade-offs: a 128K context — smaller than the 1M-window flagships here, no published SWE-Bench Verified score, a mid-tier model, not a frontier reasoner, and proprietary, unlike Mistral's open-weight releases. At $0.4 in / $2 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. Llama 4 Scout gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. Mistral Medium 3 gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 4 Scout or Mistral Medium 3 better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Llama 4 Scout leans toward largest advertised context (10m) while Mistral Medium 3 leans toward strong cost-to-capability at $0.40/$2.00, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Llama 4 Scout or Mistral Medium 3?
Llama 4 Scout is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while Mistral Medium 3 is API-metered at $0.4/$2 per 1M tokens. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
Llama 4 Scout — 10M vs 128K, about 78× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Llama 4 Scout and Mistral Medium 3 together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Llama 4 Scout, Mistral Medium 3 and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Llama 4 Scout or Mistral Medium 3?
Mistral Medium 3 — released May 7, 2025, about 32 days after Llama 4 Scout.
Llama 4 Scout vs Mistral Medium 3
Meta · US | Mistral AI · France · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick Llama 4 Scout for largest advertised context (10m) or open weights, single-gpu friendly. Pick Mistral Medium 3 for strong cost-to-capability at $0.40/$2.00 or general reasoning, coding and multimodal tasks. Choose Llama 4 Scout if you need self-hosting or data privacy; Mistral Medium 3 if you want a managed API.
Llama 4 Scout (Meta, US) and Mistral Medium 3 (Mistral AI, France) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. Llama 4 Scout is the 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller. Mistral Medium 3 is mistral's mid-tier model at $0.40/$2.00 — efficient general capability with a 128K window, below the 1M-context frontier tier. They diverge most on price, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences at a glance
▸Cost model: Llama 4 Scout ships open weights you can self-host (hardware cost only, no per-token fee), while Mistral Medium 3 is API-metered at $0.4/$2 per 1M tokens. Your choice depends on whether you want zero marginal cost at the price of running infrastructure.
▸Context window: Llama 4 Scout holds 78× more — 10M (~15,000 pages) vs 128K (~192 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
▸Recency: Mistral Medium 3 is the newer model by about 32 days (released May 7, 2025), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
▸Ecosystem: this is a US-vs-France matchup — they differ in pricing philosophy, data-residency options, and tooling ecosystems, not only benchmarks.
Side-by-side specs
Spec
Llama 4 Scout
Mistral Medium 3
Provider
Meta (US)
Mistral AI (France)
Released
April 2025
May 7, 2025
Context window
10M (~15,000 pages)
128K (~192 pages)
Price (in/out)
Open weight (self-host / free)
$0.4/$2 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
Yes — self-hostable
No — API only
Modalities
text, image, code
text, image, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
15%
Not published
Who wins what
Largest advertised context (10M)
Llama 4 Scout
Its 10M window holds about 78× more than Mistral Medium 3's 128K in a single prompt.
Open weights, single-GPU friendly
Llama 4 Scout
Open weights make this possible at all — Mistral Medium 3 is API-only, so it cannot leave the vendor's servers.
Self-hosted, data-private deployment
Llama 4 Scout
The 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller — and it carries the larger 10M context.
Strong cost-to-capability at $0.40/$2.00
Mistral Medium 3
Mistral's mid-tier model at $0.40/$2.00 — efficient general capability with a 128K window, below the 1M-context frontier tier — and it is the newer of the two.
General reasoning, coding and multimodal tasks
Mistral Medium 3
Llama 4 Scout is comparatively weak here — ~15% on long-context multi-needle reasoning
Efficient mid-tier deployment for production workloads
Mistral Medium 3
Mistral Medium 3 lists efficient mid-tier deployment for production workloads among its strengths; Llama 4 Scout does not.
Lowest cost at scale
Llama 4 Scout
Its weights are open, so at volume you pay for your own hardware instead of Mistral Medium 3's $0.4/$2 per 1M tokens.
Largest single-prompt input
Llama 4 Scout
Its 10M window is about 78× larger than Mistral Medium 3's 128K, fitting roughly 15,000 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ Llama 4 Scout
At Open weight (self-host / free) it undercuts Mistral Medium 3, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ Llama 4 Scout
Larger 10M window fits more in one prompt.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs
→ Llama 4 Scout
Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; Mistral Medium 3 is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is largest advertised context (10m)
→ Llama 4 Scout
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is strong cost-to-capability at $0.40/$2.00
→ Mistral Medium 3
That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules
→ Llama 4 Scout or Mistral Medium 3
Origin (US vs France) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.
Llama 4 Scout: where it fits
The 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller. Released April 2025 by Meta, it is built for largest advertised context (10M), open weights, single-GPU friendly, self-hosted, data-private deployment, and retrieval over very long inputs.
Its trade-offs are real: effective recall degrades far below 10M, and ~15% on long-context multi-needle reasoning. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.
Mistral Medium 3: where it fits
Mistral's mid-tier model at $0.40/$2.00 — efficient general capability with a 128K window, below the 1M-context frontier tier. Released May 7, 2025 by Mistral AI, it is built for strong cost-to-capability at $0.40/$2.00, general reasoning, coding and multimodal tasks, efficient mid-tier deployment for production workloads, and text and image input.
Its trade-offs: a 128K context — smaller than the 1M-window flagships here, no published SWE-Bench Verified score, a mid-tier model, not a frontier reasoner, and proprietary, unlike Mistral's open-weight releases. At $0.4 in / $2 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. Llama 4 Scout gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. Mistral Medium 3 gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Want both Llama 4 Scout and Mistral Medium 3 without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.
Is Llama 4 Scout or Mistral Medium 3 better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Llama 4 Scout leans toward largest advertised context (10m) while Mistral Medium 3 leans toward strong cost-to-capability at $0.40/$2.00, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Llama 4 Scout or Mistral Medium 3?
Llama 4 Scout is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while Mistral Medium 3 is API-metered at $0.4/$2 per 1M tokens. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
Llama 4 Scout — 10M vs 128K, about 78× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Llama 4 Scout and Mistral Medium 3 together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Llama 4 Scout, Mistral Medium 3 and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Llama 4 Scout or Mistral Medium 3?
Mistral Medium 3 — released May 7, 2025, about 32 days after Llama 4 Scout.
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.