Claude Opus 4.6 vs Mistral Large 2
Direct comparison between anthropic and mistral for chat models. Specs, prices, strengths, weaknesses — decide on facts.
At a glance
- · Cheaper: Mistral Large 2
- · Longer context window: Claude Opus 4.6 at 200,000 tokens
- · Claude Opus 4.6: Highest hit rate on SWE-bench among closed-source models
- · Mistral Large 2: EU-hosted — GDPR-friendly without US data export
Spec comparison
| Spec | Claude Opus 4.6 | Mistral Large 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | anthropic | mistral |
| Input per 1M tokens | $5.00 / 1M | $2.00 / 1M |
| Output per 1M tokens | $25.00 / 1M | $6.00 / 1M |
| Context window | 200,000 tok | 128,000 tok |
| Max output | 32,000 tok | 8,192 tok |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-07 | — |
| Vision | ||
| Tool calling | ||
| JSON mode | ||
| Structured output | ||
| Reasoning |
Claude Opus 4.6 — strengths
- +Highest hit rate on SWE-bench among closed-source models
- +Excellent at multi-day agentic tasks without drift
- +Top performance on multi-repo code analysis
Mistral Large 2 — strengths
- +EU-hosted — GDPR-friendly without US data export
- +Strong on European languages (DE, FR, IT, ES)
- +Solid tool calling and JSON mode
Claude Opus 4.6 — weaknesses
- −Substantially pricier per token than Sonnet — rarely worth the markup
- −Higher latency, especially with extended thinking enabled
Mistral Large 2 — weaknesses
- −Code quality behind Sonnet 4.6 and GPT-5.4
- −No native vision