Codestral vs GLM-4.5-Flash
GLM-4.5-Flash comes out ahead, 65 to 48 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Mistral AICodestral
48/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $0.90
- Context256K
- Our pick
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-4.5-Flash
65/100- ECI—
- PriceFree / Free
- Context131K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
GLM-4.5-Flash is our pick
GLM-4.5-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against Codestral (48). It leads on price and inputs & features. Codestral wins on 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-FlashGLM-4.5-Flash Free · Codestral $0.45 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextCodestralCodestral 256,000 · GLM-4.5-Flash 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsCodestral: Text · GLM-4.5-Flash: Text
- Self-hostingCodestralPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Codestral | GLM-4.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 66 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 48/100 | 65/100 |
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-FlashZ.ai (Zhipu) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.30 | Free (best) |
| Output | $0.90 | Free (best) |
| Cached input | $0.03 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.45 | Free (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Mistral API | Official Z.AI API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 256,000 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 4,096 tokens | 98,304 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | codestral-latest | glm-4.5-flash |
| API providers | 3 | 4 (best) |
| Released | May 29, 2024 | Jul 28, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Oct 2024 | 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$4.80
- GLM-4.5-FlashFree
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Codestral or GLM-4.5-Flash?
GLM-4.5-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against Codestral (48). It leads on price and inputs & features. Codestral wins on 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 or GLM-4.5-Flash?
GLM-4.5-Flash is cheaper at Free input / Free output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). Codestral costs $0.30 input / $0.90 output per million tokens (official Mistral API price). GLM-4.5-Flash is listed as free.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Codestral has not been scored yet and GLM-4.5-Flash has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Codestral and GLM-4.5-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?
Codestral has the largest context window at 256,000 tokens, against 131,072 for GLM-4.5-Flash. Maximum output per response: Codestral up to 4,096, GLM-4.5-Flash up to 98,304 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Codestral accepts text; GLM-4.5-Flash accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Codestral publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; GLM-4.5-Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
GLM-4.5-Flash is the newest, released Jul 28, 2025. Codestral came out May 29, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Codestral Oct 2024, GLM-4.5-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 Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Qwen2.5-VL 7B InstructThree-way comparison
- Codestral vs Qwen2.5-VL 7B InstructAlibaba (Qwen)
- Codestral vs Command RCohere
- Codestral vs Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-InstructMeta
- Codestral vs Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B InstructNVIDIA
- GLM-4.5-Flash vs Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253BNVIDIA
- GLM-4.5-Flash vs Nova 2 ProAmazon
