Mistral Medium 3.5 vs Muse Ember (Xhigh)
Which is better for the money: Mistral Medium 3.5 by Mistral or Muse Ember (Xhigh) by Meta? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-11-10.
Clear winner
Verdict
Pick Muse Ember (Xhigh)
Muse Ember (Xhigh) vs Mistral Medium 3.5: 641.3% more intelligence, 91.3% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 45.0% faster end-to-end.
| Metric | Mistral Medium 3.5 | Muse Ember (Xhigh) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 4.6 | 34.1 | +641.3% Muse Ember (Xhigh) is 7.4× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,103.02 | $95.73 | −91.3% Muse Ember (Xhigh) is 91.3% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 17.23s | 9.48s | −45.0% Muse Ember (Xhigh) is 45.0% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.50 / $7.50 | $0.10 / $0.50 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Mistral Medium 3.5 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 52.50 for $718.
- Muse Ember (Xhigh) is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
Mistral Medium 3.5Muse Ember (Xhigh)Today'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/mistral-medium-3-5/muse-ember-xhigh · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/mistral-medium-3-5/muse-ember-xhigh?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill