Codestral vs SOLAR 10.7B Instruct v1.0 vs Qwen Plus
Qwen Plus comes out ahead, 51 to 35 and 0 on our weighted score, though Codestral is 25% cheaper per token.
Mistral AICodestral
35/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $0.90
- Context256K
UpstageSOLAR 10.7B Instruct v1.0
0/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context4K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen Plus
51/100- ECI—
- Price$0.40 / $1.20
- Context1M
Qwen Plus is our pick
Qwen Plus is the better all-round choice, scoring 51/100 against Codestral (35) and SOLAR 10.7B Instruct v1.0 (0). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. 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 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · SOLAR 10.7B Instruct v1.0 unpriced
- Longest contextQwen PlusQwen Plus 1,000,000 · Codestral 256,000 · SOLAR 10.7B Instruct v1.0 4,096 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsCodestral: Text · SOLAR 10.7B Instruct v1.0: Text · Qwen Plus: Text
- Self-hostingCodestral and SOLAR 10.7B Instruct v1.0Publishes downloadable weights (CC-BY-NC-4.0)
| Measure | Weight | Codestral | SOLAR 10.7B Instruct v1.0 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs & features | 60% | 35 | 0 | 45 |
| Context window | 40% | 36 | 0 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 35/100 | 0/100 | 51/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability and price. 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 | SOLAR 10.7B Instruct v1.0Upstage | Qwen PlusAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.30 (best) | — | $0.40 |
| Output | $0.90 (best) | — | $1.20 |
| Cached input | $0.03 (best) | — | $0.08 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.45 (best) | — | $0.60 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | — | Over 256K: $1.20 / $3.60 |
| Price source | Official Mistral API | — | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 256,000 tokens | 4,096 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 4,096 tokens | 4,096 tokens | 32,768 tokens (best) |
| 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 | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | No | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | OpenCC-BY-NC-4.0 | Proprietary |
| API model ID | codestral-latest | — | qwen-plus |
| API providers | 4 | — | 10 (best) |
| Released | May 29, 2024 | Dec 12, 2023 | Jan 25, 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
- SOLAR 10.7B Instruct v1.0—
- Qwen Plus$6.40
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Codestral, SOLAR 10.7B Instruct v1.0 or Qwen Plus?
Qwen Plus is the better all-round choice, scoring 51/100 against Codestral (35) and SOLAR 10.7B Instruct v1.0 (0). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Codestral, SOLAR 10.7B Instruct v1.0 or Qwen Plus?
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). 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). SOLAR 10.7B Instruct v1.0 has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Codestral has not been scored yet, SOLAR 10.7B Instruct v1.0 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, SOLAR 10.7B Instruct v1.0 and Qwen Plus yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that SOLAR 10.7B Instruct v1.0 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 4,096 for SOLAR 10.7B Instruct v1.0. Maximum output per response: Codestral up to 4,096, SOLAR 10.7B Instruct v1.0 up to 4,096, Qwen Plus up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Codestral accepts text; SOLAR 10.7B Instruct v1.0 accepts text; Qwen Plus accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Codestral and SOLAR 10.7B Instruct v1.0 publishes its weights (CC-BY-NC-4.0) and can be self-hosted; Qwen Plus is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Codestral is the newest, released May 29, 2024. Qwen Plus came out Jan 25, 2024; SOLAR 10.7B Instruct v1.0 came out Dec 12, 2023. 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.
