Side-by-side comparison
Qwen3.6 35B A3B vs Codestral 2508
Qwen
Qwen3.6 35B A3B
👁 Vision
🔧 Tools
{} JSON
Input / 1M
$0.1500
Output / 1M
$1.0000
| Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Codestral 2508 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Qwen | Mistral |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 262,144 | 256,000 |
| Capabilities Optional capabilities the model advertises: vision (images), tools (function calling), json_mode (structured output). | vision, tools, json_mode | tools, json_mode |
| Input $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens you send (prompt + context). Cheaper side highlighted. Glossary → | 0.1500 | 0.3000 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 1.0000 | 0.9000 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.6 35B A3B or Codestral 2508?
Qwen3.6 35B A3B is cheaper than Codestral 2508 on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.025 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, Qwen3.6 35B A3B or Codestral 2508?
Qwen3.6 35B A3B has the larger context window at 262k tokens versus 256k tokens for Codestral 2508. That means Qwen3.6 35B A3B can ingest about 1.0x as much text per request.
What is the difference between Qwen3.6 35B A3B and Codestral 2508?
Qwen3.6 35B A3B comes from Qwen; 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.