Side-by-side comparison
Codestral 2508 vs Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)
Qwen
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)
🔧 Tools
{} JSON
Input / 1M
$0.2600
Output / 1M
$0.7800
| Codestral 2508 | Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Mistral | Qwen |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 256,000 | 1,000,000 |
| 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 → | 0.3000 | 0.2600 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 0.9000 | 0.7800 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, Codestral 2508 or Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)?
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) is cheaper than Codestral 2508 on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.08 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 Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)?
Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) has the larger context window at 1M tokens versus 256k tokens for Codestral 2508. That means Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) can ingest about 3.9x as much text per request.
What is the difference between Codestral 2508 and Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking)?
Codestral 2508 comes from Mistral; Qwen Plus 0728 (thinking) comes from Qwen. They differ in pricing, context window, and supported capabilities — see the side-by-side table on this page for the exact figures, refreshed nightly.