Pick Llama 4 Scout for largest advertised context (10m) or open weights, single-gpu friendly. Pick Mistral Medium 3.5 for strong intelligence-for-size — artificial analysis intelligence index 30, near the top of its price tier or 128b dense open-weight model — self-hostable. On a tight budget at scale, Llama 4 Scout is the value pick.
Llama 4 Scout (Meta, US) and Mistral Medium 3.5 (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 3.5 is mistral's efficient 128B open-weight model — a single dense model unifying reasoning and coding that punches above its size on independent tests (AA Index 30). They diverge most on price and context window — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences
Context window: Llama 4 Scout holds 39× more — 10M (~15,000 pages) vs 256K (~384 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 3.5 is the newer model by about 13 months (released April 29, 2026), 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 3.5
Provider
Meta (US)
Mistral AI (France)
Released
April 2025
April 29, 2026
Context window
10M (~15,000 pages)
256K (~384 pages)
Price (in/out)
Open weight (self-host / free)
$1.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
Yes — self-hostable
Yes — self-hostable
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 39× more than Mistral Medium 3.5's 256K in a single prompt.
Open weights, single-GPU friendly: 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.
Self-hosted, data-private deployment: Llama 4 Scout — Llama 4 Scout lists self-hosted, data-private deployment among its strengths; Mistral Medium 3.5 does not.
Strong intelligence-for-size — Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index 30, near the top of its price tier: Mistral Medium 3.5 — Mistral's efficient 128B open-weight model — a single dense model unifying reasoning and coding that punches above its size on independent tests (AA Index 30) — and it is the newer of the two.
128B dense open-weight model — self-hostable: Mistral Medium 3.5 — Mistral Medium 3.5 lists 128B dense open-weight model — self-hostable among its strengths; Llama 4 Scout does not.
Unifies reasoning and coding into one model with an adjustable reasoning effort: Mistral Medium 3.5 — Llama 4 Scout is comparatively weak here — ~15% on long-context multi-needle reasoning
Lowest cost at scale: Llama 4 Scout — Its weights are open, so at volume you pay for your own hardware instead of Mistral Medium 3.5's $1.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens.
Largest single-prompt input: Llama 4 Scout — Its 10M window is about 39× larger than Mistral Medium 3.5's 256K, 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 3.5, 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.
Anyone whose priority is largest advertised context (10m): Llama 4 Scout — It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is strong intelligence-for-size — artificial analysis intelligence index 30, near the top of its price tier: Mistral Medium 3.5 — That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules: Llama 4 Scout or Mistral Medium 3.5 — 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 3.5: where it fits
Mistral's efficient 128B open-weight model — a single dense model unifying reasoning and coding that punches above its size on independent tests (AA Index 30). Released April 29, 2026 by Mistral AI, it is built for strong intelligence-for-size — Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index 30, near the top of its price tier, 128B dense open-weight model — self-hostable, unifies reasoning and coding into one model with an adjustable reasoning effort, and 256K context with text and image input.
Its trade-offs: below the absolute frontier — a value/efficiency pick, not a flagship-beater, output pricing ($7.50/M) is higher than the cheapest Chinese rivals, license framing ('open' vs enterprise) varies across sources — confirm terms for commercial use, and no native video or audio. At $1.5 in / $7.5 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
This is less "which is smarter" and more "which ecosystem fits." Llama 4 Scout (US) and Mistral Medium 3.5 (France) differ on pricing philosophy, data-residency, and tooling as much as on raw scores. Llama 4 Scout is the cheaper option, which matters at volume. The pragmatic move is to run one real task through both and judge the outputs against your own constraints — including where your data is allowed to be processed.
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 4 Scout or Mistral Medium 3.5 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 3.5 leans toward strong intelligence-for-size — artificial analysis intelligence index 30, near the top of its price tier, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Llama 4 Scout or Mistral Medium 3.5?
Llama 4 Scout is cheaper — Open weight (self-host / free) vs $1.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens.
Which has the bigger context window?
Llama 4 Scout — 10M vs 256K, about 39× 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 3.5 together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Llama 4 Scout, Mistral Medium 3.5 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 3.5?
Mistral Medium 3.5 — released April 29, 2026, about 13 months after Llama 4 Scout.
Llama 4 Scout vs Mistral Medium 3.5
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 3.5 for strong intelligence-for-size — artificial analysis intelligence index 30, near the top of its price tier or 128b dense open-weight model — self-hostable. On a tight budget at scale, Llama 4 Scout is the value pick.
Llama 4 Scout (Meta, US) and Mistral Medium 3.5 (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 3.5 is mistral's efficient 128B open-weight model — a single dense model unifying reasoning and coding that punches above its size on independent tests (AA Index 30). They diverge most on price and context window — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences at a glance
▸Context window: Llama 4 Scout holds 39× more — 10M (~15,000 pages) vs 256K (~384 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 3.5 is the newer model by about 13 months (released April 29, 2026), 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 3.5
Provider
Meta (US)
Mistral AI (France)
Released
April 2025
April 29, 2026
Context window
10M (~15,000 pages)
256K (~384 pages)
Price (in/out)
Open weight (self-host / free)
$1.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
Yes — self-hostable
Yes — self-hostable
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 39× more than Mistral Medium 3.5's 256K in a single prompt.
Open weights, single-GPU friendly
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.
Self-hosted, data-private deployment
Llama 4 Scout
Llama 4 Scout lists self-hosted, data-private deployment among its strengths; Mistral Medium 3.5 does not.
Strong intelligence-for-size — Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index 30, near the top of its price tier
Mistral Medium 3.5
Mistral's efficient 128B open-weight model — a single dense model unifying reasoning and coding that punches above its size on independent tests (AA Index 30) — and it is the newer of the two.
128B dense open-weight model — self-hostable
Mistral Medium 3.5
Mistral Medium 3.5 lists 128B dense open-weight model — self-hostable among its strengths; Llama 4 Scout does not.
Unifies reasoning and coding into one model with an adjustable reasoning effort
Mistral Medium 3.5
Llama 4 Scout is comparatively weak here — ~15% on long-context multi-needle reasoning
Lowest cost at scale
Llama 4 Scout
Its weights are open, so at volume you pay for your own hardware instead of Mistral Medium 3.5's $1.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens.
Largest single-prompt input
Llama 4 Scout
Its 10M window is about 39× larger than Mistral Medium 3.5's 256K, 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 3.5, 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.
Anyone whose priority is largest advertised context (10m)
→ Llama 4 Scout
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is strong intelligence-for-size — artificial analysis intelligence index 30, near the top of its price tier
→ Mistral Medium 3.5
That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules
→ Llama 4 Scout or Mistral Medium 3.5
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 3.5: where it fits
Mistral's efficient 128B open-weight model — a single dense model unifying reasoning and coding that punches above its size on independent tests (AA Index 30). Released April 29, 2026 by Mistral AI, it is built for strong intelligence-for-size — Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index 30, near the top of its price tier, 128B dense open-weight model — self-hostable, unifies reasoning and coding into one model with an adjustable reasoning effort, and 256K context with text and image input.
Its trade-offs: below the absolute frontier — a value/efficiency pick, not a flagship-beater, output pricing ($7.50/M) is higher than the cheapest Chinese rivals, license framing ('open' vs enterprise) varies across sources — confirm terms for commercial use, and no native video or audio. At $1.5 in / $7.5 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
This is less "which is smarter" and more "which ecosystem fits." Llama 4 Scout (US) and Mistral Medium 3.5 (France) differ on pricing philosophy, data-residency, and tooling as much as on raw scores. Llama 4 Scout is the cheaper option, which matters at volume. The pragmatic move is to run one real task through both and judge the outputs against your own constraints — including where your data is allowed to be processed.
Want both Llama 4 Scout and Mistral Medium 3.5 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 3.5 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 3.5 leans toward strong intelligence-for-size — artificial analysis intelligence index 30, near the top of its price tier, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Llama 4 Scout or Mistral Medium 3.5?
Llama 4 Scout is cheaper — Open weight (self-host / free) vs $1.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens.
Which has the bigger context window?
Llama 4 Scout — 10M vs 256K, about 39× 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 3.5 together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Llama 4 Scout, Mistral Medium 3.5 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 3.5?
Mistral Medium 3.5 — released April 29, 2026, about 13 months 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.