Side-by-side comparison
Codestral 2508 vs MiniMax M2.1
| Codestral 2508 | MiniMax M2.1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Mistral | MiniMax |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 256,000 | 196,608 |
| 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 → | 0.3000 | 0.2900 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 0.9000 | 0.9500 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, Codestral 2508 or MiniMax M2.1?
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, Codestral 2508 or MiniMax M2.1?
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 Codestral 2508 and MiniMax M2.1?
Codestral 2508 comes from Mistral; MiniMax M2.1 comes from MiniMax. They differ in pricing, context window, and supported capabilities — see the side-by-side table on this page for the exact figures, refreshed nightly.