Side-by-side comparison
MiniMax M2.1 vs Codestral 2508
| MiniMax M2.1 | Codestral 2508 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | MiniMax | Mistral |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 196,608 | 256,000 |
| Capabilities Optional capabilities the model advertises: vision (images), tools (function calling), json_mode (structured output). | tools, json_mode | tools, json_mode |
| Input $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens you send (prompt + context). Cheaper side highlighted. Glossary → | 0.2900 | 0.3000 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 0.9500 | 0.9000 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, MiniMax M2.1 or Codestral 2508?
Codestral 2508 is cheaper than MiniMax M2.1 on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.02 per 1M tokens. Exact savings depend on your input-vs-output ratio — use the cost calculator on this page for a workload-specific estimate.
Which has a larger context window, MiniMax M2.1 or Codestral 2508?
Codestral 2508 has the larger context window at 256k tokens versus 197k tokens for MiniMax M2.1. That means Codestral 2508 can ingest about 1.3x as much text per request.
What is the difference between MiniMax M2.1 and Codestral 2508?
MiniMax M2.1 comes from MiniMax; Codestral 2508 comes from Mistral. They differ in pricing, context window, and supported capabilities — see the side-by-side table on this page for the exact figures, refreshed nightly.