Gemini 3.5 vs Mistral OCR 4
Pricing, benchmarks, and use case comparison
Quick take
- •Gemini 3.5 is meaningfully stronger at coding (90 vs 5 on our capability index).
- •Mistral OCR 4 is meaningfully stronger at cost efficiency (96 vs 85).
- •Gemini 3.5 is 100% cheaper on input tokens, which compounds fast on high-volume or agentic workloads.
Specs comparison
| Gemini 3.5 | Mistral OCR 4 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google DeepMind | Mistral AI |
| Type | Closed source | Closed source |
| Context window | ✓1,048,576 tokens (Gemini 3.5 Flash; Pro variant not yet released) | Not announced |
| Input / 1M tokens | ✓$1.50 | 4000 |
| Output / 1M tokens | $9.00 | 4000 |
| Release date | 2026-05 | 2026-06 |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 | Mistral OCR 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (coding) | 76.2% | - |
| MCP Atlas (tool use) | 83.6% | - |
| CharXiv Reasoning (multimodal) | 84.2% | - |
| OlmOCRBench | - | 85.20 |
| OmniDocBench | - | 93.07 |
| Human preference (head-to-head) | - | 72% win rate |
| Human evaluation (blind) | - | 72% |
| Human Evaluation (Blind Test) | - | 72% win rate |
Scores sourced from official provider release posts and independent benchmark aggregators.
Which should you choose?
Choose Gemini 3.5 if...
- →You need frontier agent/coding performance without frontier prices
- →Building autonomous agents that make many tool calls
- →High-throughput production workloads that were previously too costly on a Pro model
- →You want a strong default multimodal model with a 1M-token context window
Choose Mistral OCR 4 if...
- →You need to convert PDFs, scans, or office docs into structured text/Markdown
- →You require high-accuracy multilingual document parsing at low cost
- →You need tables, equations, and layout preserved with confidence scores
- →You must keep documents in-house (self-hosted deployment)