Codestral vs GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen Plus
Qwen Plus comes out ahead, 54 to 49 and 48 on our weighted score, though GLM-4.5-Air is 29% cheaper per token.
Mistral AICodestral
49/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $0.90
- Context256K
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-4.5-Air
48/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $1.10
- Context131K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen Plus
54/100- ECI—
- Price$0.40 / $1.20
- Context1M
Qwen Plus is our pick
Qwen Plus is the better all-round choice, scoring 54/100 against Codestral (49) and GLM-4.5-Air (48). It leads on inputs & features and context window. 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 priceGLM-4.5-AirGLM-4.5-Air $0.425 · Codestral $0.45 · Qwen Plus $0.60 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen PlusQwen Plus 1,000,000 · Codestral 256,000 · GLM-4.5-Air 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsCodestral: Text · GLM-4.5-Air: Text · Qwen Plus: Text
- Self-hostingCodestral and GLM-4.5-AirPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Codestral | GLM-4.5-Air | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 64 | 65 | 58 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 35 | 45 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 25 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 49/100 | 48/100 | 54/100 |
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 | CodestralMistral AI | GLM-4.5-AirZ.ai (Zhipu) | Qwen PlusAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.30 | $0.20 (best) | $0.40 |
| Output | $0.90 (best) | $1.10 | $1.20 |
| Cached input | $0.03 (best) | $0.03 (best) | $0.08 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.45 | $0.425 (best) | $0.60 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Over 256K: $1.20 / $3.60 |
| Price source | Official Mistral API | Official Z.AI API | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 256,000 tokens | 131,072 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 4,096 tokens | 98,304 tokens (best) | 32,768 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | codestral-latest | glm-4.5-air | qwen-plus |
| API providers | 4 | 19 (best) | 10 |
| Released | May 29, 2024 | Jul 28, 2025 | Jan 25, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Oct 2024 | Apr 2025 | Apr 2024 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Codestral$4.80
- GLM-4.5-Air$4.20
- Qwen Plus$6.40
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Codestral, GLM-4.5-Air or Qwen Plus?
Qwen Plus is the better all-round choice, scoring 54/100 against Codestral (49) and GLM-4.5-Air (48). It leads on inputs & features and context window. 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, GLM-4.5-Air or Qwen Plus?
GLM-4.5-Air is cheaper at $0.20 input / $1.10 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). Codestral costs $0.30 input / $0.90 output per million tokens (official Mistral API price); Qwen Plus costs $0.40 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.425 per million tokens for GLM-4.5-Air versus $0.45 for Codestral (1.1× as much) and $0.60 for Qwen Plus (1.4× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Codestral has not been scored yet, GLM-4.5-Air has not been scored yet and Qwen Plus has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Codestral, GLM-4.5-Air and Qwen Plus yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen Plus has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 256,000 for Codestral and 131,072 for GLM-4.5-Air. Maximum output per response: Codestral up to 4,096, GLM-4.5-Air up to 98,304, Qwen Plus up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Codestral accepts text; GLM-4.5-Air accepts text; Qwen Plus accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Codestral and GLM-4.5-Air publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Qwen Plus is proprietary.
Which is newer?
GLM-4.5-Air is the newest, released Jul 28, 2025. Codestral came out May 29, 2024; Qwen Plus came out Jan 25, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Codestral Oct 2024, GLM-4.5-Air Apr 2025, Qwen Plus Apr 2024.
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.
