Model comparison

Magistral Medium vs Qwen Max

Magistral Medium and Qwen Max score almost the same on the Noometry Index (35.2 vs 34.7), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Magistral Medium Mistral AI

35.2

Rank #227 Confirmed

Qwen Max Alibaba (Qwen)

34.7

Rank #230 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Magistral Medium scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen Max in 5 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen Max leads 25.1 to 8.6.
  • Both cost about the same: $2 input and $5 output per million tokens.
  • Magistral Medium accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 33K.
  • Magistral Medium has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Magistral Medium and Qwen Max specifications
Magistral MediumQwen Max
ProviderMistral AIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index35.234.7
Released2025-03-172024-04-03
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window262K33K
Max output16K8K
Input $ / M tokens$2$1.60
Output $ / M tokens$5$6.40
Results tracked2223

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Magistral Medium leads

Magistral Medium: 39.1 (#161), Qwen Max: 30.7 (#292)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMagistral MediumQwen Max
LMArena Coding13191288
Aider Polyglot—21.8%
SciCode39.2%—

Reasoning Qwen Max leads

Magistral Medium: 8.6 (#348), Qwen Max: 25.1 (#151)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMagistral MediumQwen Max
LMArena Hard Prompts12671269
ARC-AGI-20%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark16.2%—
ARC-AGI-16.1%—
CritPt0.3%—

Math Magistral Medium leads

Magistral Medium: 35.1 (#189), Qwen Max: 22.3 (#276)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMagistral MediumQwen Max
LMArena Math12501275
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—16.1%
MATH Level 5—67.2%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—1%

Knowledge Magistral Medium leads

Magistral Medium: 33.5 (#202), Qwen Max: 30.3 (#228)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMagistral MediumQwen Max
LMArena Expert12231248
GPQA Diamond—56.1%

Multilingual Qwen Max leads

Magistral Medium: 39.6 (#224), Qwen Max: 41.8 (#202)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMagistral MediumQwen Max
LMArena Non-English12321263
LMArena Chinese12271254
LMArena French12671330
LMArena German12481254
LMArena Japanese11751205
LMArena Korean11251142
LMArena Russian12241274
LMArena Spanish12711290

Instruction Following Too close to call

Magistral Medium: 66.0 (#211), Qwen Max: 66.5 (#208)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMagistral MediumQwen Max
LMArena Instruction Following12541262

Long Context Too close to call

Magistral Medium: 39.3 (#183), Qwen Max: 39.4 (#180)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMagistral MediumQwen Max
LMArena Longer Query12951288
Fiction.LiveBench—66.7%

Writing & Preference Qwen Max leads

Magistral Medium: 46.3 (#219), Qwen Max: 47.8 (#205)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMagistral MediumQwen Max
LMArena Text12551282
LMArena Creative Writing12451248
LMArena Multi-Turn12751277

Frequently asked questions

Is Magistral Medium better than Qwen Max?

Magistral Medium and Qwen Max score almost the same on the Noometry Index (35.2 vs 34.7), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Which is cheaper, Magistral Medium or Qwen Max?

Magistral Medium is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $5 per million output tokens; Qwen Max lists at $1.60 and $6.40.

Is Magistral Medium or Qwen Max better for coding?

Magistral Medium scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.1 versus 30.7 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Magistral Medium does, with 262K tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do Magistral Medium and Qwen Max share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Magistral Medium has 22 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Max has 23.

Related comparisons

Go deeper