Codestral 25.08 vs Qwen3 Coder Flash
Qwen3 Coder Flash comes out ahead, 51 to 47 on our weighted score, though Codestral 25.08 is 25% cheaper per token.
Mistral AICodestral 25.08
47/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $0.90
- Context128K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3 Coder Flash
51/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $1.50
- Context1M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Qwen3 Coder Flash is our pick
Qwen3 Coder Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 51/100 against Codestral 25.08 (47). It leads on context window. Codestral 25.08 wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceCodestral 25.08Codestral 25.08 $0.45 · Qwen3 Coder Flash $0.60 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3 Coder FlashQwen3 Coder Flash 1,000,000 · Codestral 25.08 128,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsCodestral 25.08: Text · Qwen3 Coder Flash: Text
- Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
| Measure | Weight | Codestral 25.08 | Qwen3 Coder Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 64 | 58 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 47/100 | 51/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Codestral 25.08Mistral AI | Qwen3 Coder FlashAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.30 | $0.30 |
| Output | $0.90 (best) | $1.50 |
| Cached input | $0.03 (best) | $0.06 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.45 (best) | $0.60 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Over 32K: $0.50 / $2.50 |
| Price source | Official Mistral API | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 128,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 65,536 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | codestral-2508 | qwen3-coder-flash |
| API providers | 11 (best) | 10 |
| Released | Jul 30, 2025 | Jul 28, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Apr 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Codestral 25.08$4.80
- Qwen3 Coder Flash$6.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Codestral 25.08 or Qwen3 Coder Flash?
Qwen3 Coder Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 51/100 against Codestral 25.08 (47). It leads on context window. Codestral 25.08 wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Codestral 25.08 or Qwen3 Coder Flash?
Codestral 25.08 is cheaper at $0.30 input / $0.90 output per million tokens (official Mistral API price). Qwen3 Coder Flash costs $0.30 input / $1.50 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.45 per million tokens for Codestral 25.08 versus $0.60 for Qwen3 Coder Flash (1.3× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Codestral 25.08 has not been scored yet and Qwen3 Coder Flash has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Codestral 25.08 and Qwen3 Coder Flash yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3 Coder Flash has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 128,000 for Codestral 25.08. Maximum output per response: Codestral 25.08 up to 8,192, Qwen3 Coder Flash up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Codestral 25.08 accepts text; Qwen3 Coder Flash accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
No. Codestral 25.08 and Qwen3 Coder Flash are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.
Which is newer?
Codestral 25.08 is the newest, released Jul 30, 2025. Qwen3 Coder Flash came out Jul 28, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen3 Coder Flash Apr 2025.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add GLM-4.5-AirThree-way comparison
- Codestral 25.08 vs GLM-4.5-AirZ.ai (Zhipu)
- Codestral 25.08 vs Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5NVIDIA
- Codestral 25.08 vs ERNIE 4.5 300B A47BBaidu
- Codestral 25.08 vs Qwen3 Omni 30B A3B ThinkingAlibaba (Qwen)
- Qwen3 Coder Flash vs ERNIE 4.5 VL 424B A47B Baidu
- Qwen3 Coder Flash vs Grok Code Fast 1xAI
