Mistral Large ranks higher at 77/100 vs MBPP (Mostly Basic Python Problems) at 60/100. Capability-level comparison backed by match graph evidence from real search data.
| Feature | MBPP (Mostly Basic Python Problems) | Mistral Large |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Dataset | Model |
| UnfragileRank | 60/100 | 77/100 |
| Adoption | 1 | 1 |
| Quality |
| 1 |
| 1 |
| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 8 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Provides a standardized dataset of 974 Python programming problems with reference solutions and test cases to measure code generation model accuracy. Each problem includes a natural language task description, a correct implementation function, and three validation test cases that verify functional correctness. Models generate code solutions which are executed against these test cases to compute pass@k metrics (percentage of problems solved within k attempts).
Unique: Curated by Google Research specifically to complement HumanEval by focusing on breadth of basic programming concepts (string manipulation, list operations, mathematical functions, data structures) rather than algorithmic complexity, with human-verified reference solutions and minimal but sufficient test cases per problem
vs alternatives: Broader coverage of basic programming patterns than HumanEval's focus on algorithmic problems, making it better for evaluating practical coding proficiency; smaller and more focused than massive code corpora, enabling faster iteration and clearer signal on fundamental capabilities
Executes generated Python code against a suite of predefined test cases to determine functional correctness at scale. The validation system runs each generated solution through 3 test cases per problem, capturing execution results, exceptions, and output matching. Supports batch evaluation of multiple model outputs across all 974 problems with aggregation of pass rates and failure analysis.
Unique: Provides a standardized, reproducible validation harness with 3 test cases per problem that can be applied uniformly across different code generation models, enabling fair comparison; includes reference implementations that serve as ground truth for correctness checking
vs alternatives: More reliable than manual code review for large-scale evaluation; faster than human testing while maintaining sufficient coverage for basic programming problems; standardized test cases ensure consistent evaluation across different models and research groups
Organizes 974 problems into categories based on programming concepts tested: string manipulation, list operations, mathematical functions, and data structure algorithms. Each problem is tagged with the primary concepts it exercises, enabling filtered evaluation and analysis by concept area. This categorization allows researchers to understand model performance on specific programming domains and identify capability gaps.
Unique: Curated categorization by Google Research based on fundamental programming concepts (string, list, math, data structures) rather than algorithmic complexity or problem domain, providing a practical lens for understanding basic coding proficiency across different skill areas
vs alternatives: More granular than treating all problems as a single pool; simpler and more interpretable than complexity-based rankings; directly maps to programming education curricula, making results actionable for model improvement
Maintains a curated collection of 974 correct Python implementations paired with their corresponding test cases. Each problem includes a reference solution function that serves as ground truth for correctness evaluation, plus 3 test cases with inputs and expected outputs. This repository enables reproducible evaluation by providing a stable baseline that all generated code is compared against.
Unique: Provides human-verified reference implementations curated by Google Research rather than automatically generated or crowd-sourced solutions, ensuring high quality and correctness; paired with minimal but sufficient test cases that validate the reference solution
vs alternatives: More reliable than crowd-sourced solutions (e.g., from Stack Overflow); more interpretable than learned baselines; enables reproducible evaluation because reference solutions are fixed and publicly available
Computes pass@k metrics by sampling k generated solutions per problem and checking if at least one passes all test cases. Aggregates results across all 974 problems to produce overall pass@1, pass@10, pass@100 statistics. This metric accounts for the fact that code generation models can produce multiple valid solutions and benefits from sampling multiple attempts.
Unique: Implements the standard pass@k metric used across code generation research, enabling direct comparison with published results; accounts for sampling variance by checking if any of k attempts solves the problem, reflecting real-world usage where multiple attempts are feasible
vs alternatives: More realistic than pass@1 alone because it accounts for the fact that code generation models can produce multiple solutions; standardized metric enables comparison across papers and research groups; computationally tractable for k up to 100 on 974 problems
Enables systematic comparison of different code generation models by running them all against the same 974 problems with identical test cases and evaluation criteria. Results are aggregated into leaderboard-style rankings showing pass@k metrics for each model. This standardized comparison framework allows researchers to objectively assess which models perform better on basic programming tasks.
Unique: Provides a standardized, reproducible framework for comparing code generation models using identical problems and test cases, enabling fair assessment across different architectures, training approaches, and organizations; results are publicly available and widely cited in research
vs alternatives: More objective than subjective code quality assessments; more standardized than ad-hoc comparisons using different test sets; enables tracking progress over time as models improve
Analyzes the distribution of problem difficulty, concept coverage, and solution complexity across the 974 problems. Provides insights into what programming concepts are well-represented in the dataset and which are underrepresented. Enables researchers to understand the breadth and balance of the benchmark and identify potential gaps in coverage.
Unique: Provides structured analysis of problem distribution across programming concepts, enabling researchers to understand the benchmark's scope and identify coverage gaps; curated by Google Research with explicit categorization of problems by concept type
vs alternatives: More transparent than treating the benchmark as a black box; enables targeted evaluation of specific programming skills; helps researchers understand whether MBPP is suitable for their evaluation needs
Includes a correct reference implementation and three test cases for each of the 974 problems, enabling both positive and negative evaluation modes. The reference solutions are hand-written Python functions demonstrating the expected behavior, while test cases cover typical inputs, edge cases, and boundary conditions. This allows evaluation of generated code by comparing outputs to reference solutions or by running test cases directly, supporting both execution-based and semantic-based evaluation approaches.
Unique: Provides three test cases per problem (vs. single test in some benchmarks) enabling detection of edge case failures, with hand-written reference solutions demonstrating correct implementations
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than benchmarks with single test cases, as multiple tests catch off-by-one errors and edge case failures that would pass with only one input
Mistral Large processes up to 128,000 tokens in a single context window, enabling analysis of entire codebases, long documents, or multi-turn conversations without context truncation. The architecture uses optimized attention mechanisms (likely grouped-query attention based on Mistral's prior work) to maintain computational efficiency while supporting this extended context, allowing developers to maintain coherent reasoning across large information volumes without manual chunking or sliding-window strategies.
Unique: 128K context window with grouped-query attention optimization enables full-codebase and full-document analysis without external retrieval, differentiating from GPT-4's 128K (which uses standard attention) through computational efficiency gains that reduce latency penalty
vs alternatives: Larger than Claude 3.5 Sonnet's 200K context but more cost-efficient per token than GPT-4o's extended context for most enterprise use cases due to optimized attention architecture
Mistral Large implements function calling through a schema-based interface where developers define tool signatures in JSON Schema format, and the model outputs structured function calls that can be directly dispatched to registered handlers. The implementation uses constrained decoding to ensure valid JSON output matching the provided schema, preventing malformed function calls and enabling reliable tool orchestration without post-processing validation.
Unique: Uses constrained decoding with JSON Schema validation to guarantee valid function calls without post-processing, whereas competitors like GPT-4 rely on post-hoc validation of model output, reducing error rates and enabling direct dispatch
vs alternatives: More reliable than Claude's tool_use format for complex multi-step workflows because constrained decoding prevents malformed calls, and simpler to integrate than OpenAI's function calling which requires additional validation layers
Mistral Large scores higher at 77/100 vs MBPP (Mostly Basic Python Problems) at 60/100. MBPP (Mostly Basic Python Problems) leads on ecosystem, while Mistral Large is stronger on quality.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Mistral Large can be deployed on-premises or in private cloud environments, enabling organizations to maintain data sovereignty and avoid sending sensitive information to external APIs. Self-hosted deployments support custom fine-tuning on proprietary datasets, enabling domain-specific optimization without sharing training data with Mistral. Deployment uses standard container formats (Docker) and supports multiple hardware backends (NVIDIA GPUs, AMD ROCm, Intel Gaudi).
Unique: Supports full self-hosted deployment with custom fine-tuning on proprietary data, enabling organizations to maintain complete control over model behavior and data, whereas most competitors restrict fine-tuning to managed services
vs alternatives: More flexible than OpenAI's fine-tuning (which is API-only) and more cost-effective than Claude for high-volume on-premises deployments due to lower licensing costs
Mistral Large achieves performance competitive with GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet on major reasoning benchmarks including MMLU (84.0%), HumanEval, and MATH, indicating comparable capability for complex reasoning, code generation, and mathematical problem-solving. This performance is achieved with a 123B parameter model, making it more efficient than larger competitors in terms of inference cost and latency.
Unique: Achieves GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet-level performance on major benchmarks with a 123B parameter model, enabling competitive reasoning capability at lower inference cost due to smaller model size and optimized architecture
vs alternatives: More cost-efficient than GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet for equivalent reasoning performance, making it ideal for cost-sensitive applications where benchmark-level performance is sufficient
Mistral Large exposes temperature and top-p (nucleus sampling) parameters to control the randomness and diversity of generated outputs. Temperature scales the logit distribution (higher = more random), while top-p limits sampling to the smallest set of tokens with cumulative probability ≥ p. These parameters enable tuning the model's behavior from deterministic (temperature=0) to highly creative (temperature=2.0), allowing builders to balance consistency and diversity for different use cases.
Unique: Exposes temperature and top-p parameters with standard semantics, enabling fine-grained control over output diversity and consistency without model retraining
vs alternatives: Standard parameter set comparable to GPT-4o and Claude, with no unique advantages but consistent behavior across models
Mistral Large can be constrained to output only valid JSON matching a provided schema, using constrained decoding to enforce structural validity at generation time rather than post-processing. This ensures every generated token respects the schema constraints, preventing partial or malformed JSON and enabling reliable downstream parsing without error handling for invalid output.
Unique: Enforces schema compliance at token generation time using constrained decoding, guaranteeing valid JSON output without post-processing, whereas most competitors (including GPT-4) generate JSON then validate, allowing invalid output to be produced
vs alternatives: More efficient than Claude's JSON mode because validation happens during generation rather than after, eliminating retry loops for invalid output and reducing latency for structured extraction tasks
Mistral Large is trained on multilingual data and maintains reasoning capability across 10+ languages including English, French, Spanish, German, Italian, Portuguese, Dutch, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, and Arabic. The model uses a shared embedding space and unified transformer architecture rather than language-specific branches, enabling cross-lingual transfer and reasoning without language-specific fine-tuning.
Unique: Unified transformer architecture with shared embeddings across 10+ languages enables consistent reasoning quality and cross-lingual transfer, whereas competitors often use separate language-specific models or language adapters that add latency
vs alternatives: More efficient than running separate language models for each language, and maintains better cross-lingual reasoning than GPT-4o which uses separate tokenizers per language
Mistral Large uses a distinct system prompt format optimized for instruction following, where system instructions are formatted as structured directives that the model interprets with higher fidelity than standard text prompts. The architecture includes special tokens and attention patterns that prioritize system instructions over user input, enabling more reliable behavior control and reducing prompt injection vulnerabilities.
Unique: Dedicated system prompt format with special tokens and attention masking prioritizes instructions over user input, reducing prompt injection risk and improving instruction adherence vs standard chat templates used by competitors
vs alternatives: More robust instruction following than GPT-4o's system message format because special tokenization prevents user input from overriding system directives, and simpler than Claude's system prompt which requires careful phrasing to avoid conflicts
+5 more capabilities