Codestral vs Qwen Plus vs Vision Small
Vision Small comes out ahead, 61 to 54 and 49 on our weighted score, though Codestral is 3.5× cheaper per token.
Mistral AICodestral
49/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $0.90
- Context256K
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen Plus
54/100- ECI—
- Price$0.40 / $1.20
- Context1M
- Our pick
VisparkVision Small
61/100- ECI—
- Price$1.05 / $3.16
- Context1M
Vision Small is our pick
Vision Small is the better all-round choice, scoring 61/100 against Qwen Plus (54) and Codestral (49). It leads on inputs & features. 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 · Vision Small $1.58 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen Plus and Vision SmallQwen Plus 1,000,000 · Vision Small 1,000,000 · Codestral 256,000 tokens
- Widest inputsVision SmallCodestral: Text · Qwen Plus: Text · Vision Small: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingCodestralPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Codestral | Qwen Plus | Vision Small |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 64 | 58 | 39 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 45 | 100 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 60 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 49/100 | 54/100 | 61/100 |
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) | Vision SmallVispark |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.30 (best) | $0.40 | $1.05 |
| Output | $0.90 (best) | $1.20 | $3.16 |
| Cached input | $0.03 (best) | $0.08 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.45 (best) | $0.60 | $1.58 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Over 256K: $1.20 / $3.60 | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Mistral API | Official Alibaba API | Official Vispark API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 256,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 1,000,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 4,096 tokens | 32,768 tokens | 65,536 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | No | Yes |
| Video | No | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | No | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | codestral-latest | qwen-plus | vispark/vision-small |
| API providers | 4 | 10 (best) | 1 |
| Released | May 29, 2024 | Jan 25, 2024 | May 15, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Oct 2024 | 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
- Qwen Plus$6.40
- Vision Small$16.82
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Codestral, Qwen Plus or Vision Small?
Vision Small is the better all-round choice, scoring 61/100 against Qwen Plus (54) and Codestral (49). It leads on inputs & features. 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 Vision Small?
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); Vision Small costs $1.05 input / $3.16 output per million tokens (official Vispark 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 $1.58 for Vision Small (3.5× 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 Vision Small has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Codestral, Qwen Plus and Vision Small 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 and Vision Small have the largest context windows (1,000,000 and 1,000,000 tokens), against 256,000 for Codestral. Maximum output per response: Codestral up to 4,096, Qwen Plus up to 32,768, Vision Small up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Codestral accepts text; Qwen Plus accepts text; Vision Small accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video. Vision Small handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Codestral publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Qwen Plus and Vision Small is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Codestral is the newest, released May 29, 2024. Vision Small came out May 15, 2024; Qwen Plus came out Jan 25, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Codestral Oct 2024, 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.
