| Signal | GPT-4o Audio | Delta | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 50 | -17 | |
Pricing | 10 | +8 | |
Context window size | 81 | 0 | |
Recency | 91 | +0 | |
Output Capacity | 70 | +50 | |
| Overall Result | 3 wins | of 5 | 2 wins |
12
days higher
2
days
16
days higher
OpenAI
Mistral AI
Mistral Medium 3.1 saves you $610.00/month
That's $7320.00/year compared to GPT-4o Audio at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | GPT-4o Audio | Mistral Medium 3.1 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 40 | 40 | -- |
| Rank | #206 | #207 | GPT-4o Audio |
| Quality Rank | #206 | #207 | GPT-4o Audio |
| Adoption Rank | #206 | #207 | GPT-4o Audio |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 128K | 131K | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
| Pricing | $2.50/$10.00/M | $0.40/$2.00/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 50 | 67 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
| Pricing | 10 | 2 | GPT-4o Audio |
| Context window size | 81 | 81 | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
| Recency | 91 | 91 | GPT-4o Audio |
| Output Capacity | 70 | 20 | GPT-4o Audio |
Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Here's what the scores mean for these two models:
Scores 40/100 (rank #206), placing it in the top 29% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 40/100 (rank #207), placing it in the top 29% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 0-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
Mistral Medium 3.1 offers 81% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $36.00/month with Mistral Medium 3.1 vs $187.50/month with GPT-4o Audio - a $151.50 monthly difference.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Higher benchmark score (0/100) indicates stronger performance on coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Faster response time (speed score 0/100) is critical for user-facing chat. Mistral Medium 3.1 also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (131K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($2.00/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (40/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
GPT-4o Audio and Mistral Medium 3.1 are extremely close in overall performance (only 0 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
Best for Quality
GPT-4o Audio
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Mistral Medium 3.1
81% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
GPT-4o Audio
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
GPT-4o Audio
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
GPT-4o Audio
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by OpenAI
| Capability | GPT-4o Audio | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input)differs | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
OpenAI
Mistral AI
Mistral Medium 3.1 saves you $13.38/month
That's 81% cheaper than GPT-4o Audio at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | GPT-4o Audio | Mistral Medium 3.1 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 128K | 131K |
| Max Output Tokens | 16,384 | -- |
| Open Source | No | No |
| Created | Aug 15, 2025 | Aug 13, 2025 |
Both GPT-4o Audio and Mistral Medium 3.1 score 40/100, making them extremely close competitors. Choose based on pricing, provider ecosystem, or specific capability requirements.
GPT-4o Audio is ranked #206 and Mistral Medium 3.1 is ranked #207 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (90%) from MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations, with capabilities and context window as tiebreakers (10%). Scores update hourly.
Mistral Medium 3.1 is cheaper at $2.00/M output tokens vs GPT-4o Audio's $10.00/M output tokens - 5.0x more expensive. Input token pricing: GPT-4o Audio at $2.50/M vs Mistral Medium 3.1 at $0.40/M.
Mistral Medium 3.1 has a larger context window of 131,072 tokens compared to GPT-4o Audio's 128,000 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.