Codestral vs Qwen Plus vs Sonar
Qwen Plus comes out ahead, 53 to 48 and 30 on our weighted score, though Codestral is 25% cheaper per token.
Qwen Plus is our pick
Qwen Plus is the better all-round choice, scoring 53/100 against Codestral (48) and Sonar (30). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Codestral 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 priceCodestralCodestral $0.45 · Qwen Plus $0.60 · Sonar $1.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen PlusQwen Plus 1,000,000 · Codestral 256,000 · Sonar 128,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsCodestral: Text · Qwen Plus: Text · Sonar: Text
- Self-hostingCodestralPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Codestral | Qwen Plus | Sonar |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 66 | 60 | 50 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 35 | 0 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 60 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 48/100 | 53/100 | 30/100 |
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 |  Qwen PlusAlibaba (Qwen) |  SonarPerplexity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.30 (best) | $0.40 | $1.00 |
| Output | $0.90 (best) | $1.20 | $1.00 |
| Cached input | $0.03 | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.45 (best) | $0.60 | $1.00 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Mistral API | Official Alibaba API | Official Perplexity API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 256,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 128,000 tokens |
| Max output | 4,096 tokens | 32,768 tokens (best) | 4,096 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 | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | No |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | codestral-latest | qwen-plus | sonar |
| API providers | 3 | 9 (best) | 6 |
| Released | May 29, 2024 | Jan 25, 2024 | Jan 1, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Oct 2024 | Apr 2024 | Sep 1, 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
- Qwen Plus$6.40
- Sonar$12.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Codestral, Qwen Plus or Sonar?
Qwen Plus is the better all-round choice, scoring 53/100 against Codestral (48) and Sonar (30). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Codestral 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, Qwen Plus or Sonar?
Codestral is cheaper at $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); Sonar costs $1.00 input / $1.00 output per million tokens (official Perplexity API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.45 per million tokens for Codestral versus $0.60 for Qwen Plus (1.3× as much) and $1.00 for Sonar (2.2× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Codestral has not been scored yet, Qwen Plus has not been scored yet and Sonar has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Codestral, Qwen Plus and Sonar yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Sonar does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen Plus has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 256,000 for Codestral and 128,000 for Sonar. Maximum output per response: Codestral up to 4,096, Qwen Plus up to 32,768, Sonar up to 4,096 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Codestral accepts text; Qwen Plus accepts text; Sonar 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; Qwen Plus and Sonar is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Codestral is the newest, released May 29, 2024. Qwen Plus came out Jan 25, 2024; Sonar came out Jan 1, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Codestral Oct 2024, Qwen Plus Apr 2024, Sonar Sep 1, 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.
