GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen Plus vs Codestral 25.08
Qwen Plus comes out ahead, 54 to 48 and 47 on our weighted score, though GLM-4.5-Air is 29% cheaper per token.
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
Mistral AICodestral 25.08
47/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $0.90
- Context128K
Qwen Plus is our pick
Qwen Plus is the better all-round choice, scoring 54/100 against GLM-4.5-Air (48) and Codestral 25.08 (47). 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 25.08 $0.45 · Qwen Plus $0.60 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen PlusQwen Plus 1,000,000 · GLM-4.5-Air 131,072 · Codestral 25.08 128,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsGLM-4.5-Air: Text · Qwen Plus: Text · Codestral 25.08: Text
- Self-hostingGLM-4.5-AirPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | GLM-4.5-Air | Qwen Plus | Codestral 25.08 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 65 | 58 | 64 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 45 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 25 | 60 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 48/100 | 54/100 | 47/100 |
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 | GLM-4.5-AirZ.ai (Zhipu) | Qwen PlusAlibaba (Qwen) | Codestral 25.08Mistral AI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.20 (best) | $0.40 | $0.30 |
| Output | $1.10 | $1.20 | $0.90 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.03 (best) | $0.08 | $0.03 (best) |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.425 (best) | $0.60 | $0.45 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Over 256K: $1.20 / $3.60 | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Z.AI API | Official Alibaba API | Official Mistral API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 128,000 tokens |
| Max output | 98,304 tokens (best) | 32,768 tokens | 8,192 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 | Yes | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | glm-4.5-air | qwen-plus | codestral-2508 |
| API providers | 19 (best) | 10 | 11 |
| Released | Jul 28, 2025 | Jan 25, 2024 | Jul 30, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 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.
- GLM-4.5-Air$4.20
- Qwen Plus$6.40
- Codestral 25.08$4.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: GLM-4.5-Air, Qwen Plus or Codestral 25.08?
Qwen Plus is the better all-round choice, scoring 54/100 against GLM-4.5-Air (48) and Codestral 25.08 (47). 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, GLM-4.5-Air, Qwen Plus or Codestral 25.08?
GLM-4.5-Air is cheaper at $0.20 input / $1.10 output per million tokens (official Z.AI API price). Codestral 25.08 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 25.08 (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. GLM-4.5-Air has not been scored yet, Qwen Plus has not been scored yet and Codestral 25.08 has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-4.5-Air, Qwen Plus and Codestral 25.08 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 131,072 for GLM-4.5-Air and 128,000 for Codestral 25.08. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.5-Air up to 98,304, Qwen Plus up to 32,768, Codestral 25.08 up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
GLM-4.5-Air accepts text; Qwen Plus accepts text; Codestral 25.08 accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
GLM-4.5-Air publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Qwen Plus and Codestral 25.08 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Codestral 25.08 is the newest, released Jul 30, 2025. GLM-4.5-Air came out Jul 28, 2025; Qwen Plus came out Jan 25, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: 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.
