vakati-tech.ai

// head_to_head

Mistral Large 4 vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.

OpenRouter + LiveBenchAll comparisonsFull leaderboard

Qwen3.6 Plus is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here.

Qwen3.6 Plus does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.

mistralai

Mistral Large 4

Blended / 1M
$1.05
Context
1.0M
Released
Oct 6, 2026
Overall score
43.9
reasoningtool callingimage inputprompt caching

qwen

Qwen3.6 Plus

Blended / 1M
$0.731
Context
1M
Released
Apr 2, 2026
Overall score
Not evaluated
reasoningtool callingimage inputvideo input

Specs and pricing

MetricMistral Large 4Qwen3.6 Plus
LiveBench overall

Weighted mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better.

43.9—
Cost per point

Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability.

$0.0162—
Blended price / 1M

3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic.

$1.05$0.731win
Input price / 1M$0.700$0.325win
Output price / 1M$2.10$1.95
Cached input / 1M

Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one.

$0.070—
Context window1.0M1M
Max output tokens262Kwin66K

Benchmarks by category

An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — Mistral Large 4 on top, Qwen3.6 Plus below, both out of 100.

Long-horizon agentic
8.8
—
Coding
60.0
—
Reasoning
83.9
—
Browser
0.6
—
Data analysis
76.5
—
Research
28.1
—
Documents & design
65.6
—

What each one costs to run

Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.

WorkloadMistral Large 4Qwen3.6 Plus
Support chatbot

1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests

$290.64/mo$234.00/mo
RAG assistant

8K in / 600 out × 100K requests

$434.00/mo$377.00/mo
Coding agent

40K in / 4K out × 20K requests

$375.20/mo$416.00/mo
Document extraction

20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests

$826.00/mo$471.25/mo
Bulk classification

500 in / 20 out × 5M requests

$1,645/mo$1,008/mo
Run these two through the cost calculator

Which should you pick?

You are cost-constrained

Qwen3.6 Plus

Cheaper on blended list price at $0.731 per million tokens.

Mistral Large 4 vs Qwen3.6 Plus FAQ

Which is better, Mistral Large 4 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here. Qwen3.6 Plus does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.

Is Mistral Large 4 cheaper than Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus is cheaper. On a 3:1 input:output blend, Mistral Large 4 lists at $1.05 per million tokens and Qwen3.6 Plus at $0.731 — Qwen3.6 Plus is 44% cheaper. Input and output are priced separately — Mistral Large 4 charges $0.700 in and $2.10 out, Qwen3.6 Plus charges $0.325 and $1.95 — so the model that looks cheaper flips depending on how output-heavy your workload is.

Does Mistral Large 4 or Qwen3.6 Plus have a bigger context window?

They are effectively the same — 1.0M for Mistral Large 4 and 1M for Qwen3.6 Plus.

Do Mistral Large 4 and Qwen3.6 Plus support prompt caching?

Mistral Large 4 publishes a cached-input rate of $0.070 per million tokens against a full input rate of $0.700. The catalogue lists no separate cached rate for Qwen3.6 Plus, which means the provider does not price it separately here — not that caching is unavailable.

Related comparisons

How these numbers are produced

  • Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
  • Scores — LiveBench release 2026-10-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
  • Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
  • “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.

Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.