Qwen Plus vs Sonar vs Codestral
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 inputsQwen Plus: Text · Sonar: Text · Codestral: Text
- Self-hostingCodestralPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Qwen Plus | Sonar | Codestral |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 60 | 50 | 66 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 0 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 60 | 24 | 36 |
| Overall | 100% | 53/100 | 30/100 | 48/100 |
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 |  Qwen PlusAlibaba (Qwen) |  SonarPerplexity |  CodestralMistral AI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.40 | $1.00 | $0.30 (best) |
| Output | $1.20 | $1.00 | $0.90 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — | $0.03 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.60 | $1.00 | $0.45 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Alibaba API | Official Perplexity API | Official Mistral API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 128,000 tokens | 256,000 tokens |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens (best) | 4,096 tokens | 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 | Yes | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | No | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | qwen-plus | sonar | codestral-latest |
| API providers | 9 (best) | 6 | 3 |
| Released | Jan 25, 2024 | Jan 1, 2024 | May 29, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2024 | Sep 1, 2025 | Oct 2024 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Qwen Plus$6.40
- Sonar$12.00
- Codestral$4.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen Plus, Sonar or Codestral?
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, Qwen Plus, Sonar or Codestral?
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. Qwen Plus has not been scored yet, Sonar has not been scored yet and Codestral has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen Plus, Sonar and Codestral 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: Qwen Plus up to 32,768, Sonar up to 4,096, Codestral up to 4,096 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen Plus accepts text; Sonar accepts text; Codestral 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: Qwen Plus Apr 2024, Sonar Sep 1, 2025, Codestral Oct 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 Oct 4, 2026.
