Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) vs Mistral Small 3.1
Which is better for the money: Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or Mistral Small 3.1 by Mistral? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallbac… scores 48.9 points higher (56.0 vs 7.1) but costs 146× as much to run the benchmark ($4057 vs $27.8; flagship vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallbac… when you need intelligence above 7.1, and Mistral Small 3.1 when 7.1 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) | Mistral Small 3.1 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 56.0 | 7.1 | −87.3% Mistral Small 3.1 is 87.3% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $4,056.65 | $27.82 | −99.3% Mistral Small 3.1 is 99.3% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 125.20s | 10.55s | −91.6% Mistral Small 3.1 is 91.6% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $4.00 / $20.0 | $0.08 / $0.14 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Mistral Small 3.1 vs Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback): 87.3% less intelligence, 99.3% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 91.6% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
- Mistral Small 3.1 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Low) scores 21.50 for $10.6.
Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback)Mistral Small 3.1Today's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-5-xhigh/mistral-small-3-1 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-5-xhigh/mistral-small-3-1?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill