+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Gemini 2.0 Flash leads with 18.8% higher average benchmark score. Gemini 2.0 Flash offers 800.8K more tokens in context window than Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base. Both models have similar pricing. Overall, Gemini 2.0 Flash is the stronger choice for coding tasks.
+
+
+
+
Gemini 2.0 Flash was developed as the next generation of Google's fast multimodal model, designed to provide improved performance while maintaining the speed and efficiency that defines the Flash family. Built with enhanced reasoning and generation capabilities, it serves applications requiring both quality and responsiveness.
+
+
+
+
Mistral AI
Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base represents an updated iteration of the 24B foundation model, developed with architectural refinements and improved training. Built to provide enhanced base capabilities for fine-tuning, it incorporates learnings from previous versions for better downstream performance.
3 months newer
Gemini 2.0 Flash
2024-12-01
Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base
Mistral AI
2025-03-17
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Pricing Comparison
Cost per million tokens (USD)
+
+
+
+
Gemini 2.0 Flash
Input:$0.10
Output:$0.40
+
+
+
+
Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base
Input:$0.10
Output:$0.30($0.10 cheaper)
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 3 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Gemini 2.0 Flash
Average Score:69.7%(+18.8%)
+
+
+
+
Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base
Average Score:50.9%
+
+
+
+
Knowledge Cutoff
Training data recency comparison
Gemini 2.0 Flash
2024-08-01
More recent knowledge cutoff means awareness of newer technologies and frameworks
Provider Availability & Performance
Available providers and their performance metrics
+
+
+
+
Gemini 2.0 Flash
1 providers
Throughput: 183 tok/s
Latency: 0.4ms
+
+
+
+
Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base
+
+
+
+
Gemini 2.0 Flash
Avg Score:69.7%(+18.8%)
Providers:1
+
+
+
+
Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base
Avg Score:50.9%
Providers:1