Claude Opus 5 (Low) vs Mistral Small 3.2
Which is better for the money: Claude Opus 5 (Low) by Anthropic or Mistral Small 3.2 by Mistral? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Opus 5 (Low) scores 32.4 points higher (39.4 vs 7.0) but costs 13× as much to run the benchmark ($1561 vs $122; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Opus 5 (Low) when you need intelligence above 7.0, and Mistral Small 3.2 when 7.0 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 (Low) | Mistral Small 3.2 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 39.4 | 7.0 | −82.2% Mistral Small 3.2 is 82.2% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,560.91 | $121.78 | −92.2% Mistral Small 3.2 is 92.2% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 11.37s | 11.35s | −0.2% Mistral Small 3.2 is 0.2% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $5.00 / $25.0 | $0.07 / $0.20 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Mistral Small 3.2 vs Claude Opus 5 (Low): 82.2% less intelligence, 92.2% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 0.2% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Opus 5 (Low) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
- Mistral Small 3.2 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores 37.90 for $110.
Claude Opus 5 (Low)Mistral Small 3.2Today'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-low/mistral-small-3-2 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-low/mistral-small-3-2?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill