Qwen2.5 72B Instruct vs Codestral
Codestral comes out ahead, 48 to 28 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
28/100- ECI129.0
- Price$1.40 / $5.60
- Context131K
- Our pick
Mistral AICodestral
48/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $0.90
- Context256K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Codestral is our pick
Codestral is the better all-round choice, scoring 48/100 against Qwen2.5 72B Instruct (28). It leads on price 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 priceCodestralCodestral $0.45 · Qwen2.5 72B Instruct $2.45 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextCodestralCodestral 256,000 · Qwen2.5 72B Instruct 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsQwen2.5 72B Instruct: Text · Codestral: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Qwen2.5 72B Instruct | Codestral |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 31 | 66 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 36 |
| Overall | 100% | 28/100 | 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 | Qwen2.5 72B InstructAlibaba (Qwen) | CodestralMistral AI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 129.0 | — |
| ECI rank | #128 of 148 | — |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 49.2% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 8.1% | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $1.40 | $0.30 (best) |
| Output | $5.60 | $0.90 (best) |
| Cached input | — | $0.03 |
| Blended (3:1) | $2.45 | $0.45 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Alibaba API | Official Mistral API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 256,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens (best) | 4,096 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Open |
| API model ID | qwen2-5-72b-instruct | codestral-latest |
| API providers | 1 | 3 (best) |
| Released | Sep 19, 2024 | May 29, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2024 | 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.
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct$25.20
- Codestral$4.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen2.5 72B Instruct or Codestral?
Codestral is the better all-round choice, scoring 48/100 against Qwen2.5 72B Instruct (28). It leads on price 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, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct or Codestral?
Codestral is cheaper at $0.30 input / $0.90 output per million tokens (official Mistral API price). Qwen2.5 72B Instruct costs $1.40 input / $5.60 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 $2.45 for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct (5.4× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Qwen2.5 72B Instruct has an ECI of 129.0 and Codestral has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct and Codestral yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Codestral has the largest context window at 256,000 tokens, against 131,072 for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct. Maximum output per response: Qwen2.5 72B Instruct up to 8,192, Codestral up to 4,096 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct accepts text; Codestral accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights, so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct is the newest, released Sep 19, 2024. Codestral came out May 29, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen2.5 72B Instruct Apr 2024, 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.
Related comparisons
- Add Mistral Large 2.1Three-way comparison
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct vs Mistral Large 2.1Mistral AI · ECI 128.5
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct vs GPT-4oOpenAI · ECI 129.0
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct vs Claude Haiku 3.5Anthropic · ECI 127.2
- Qwen2.5 72B Instruct vs Nova ProAmazon · ECI 123.8
- Codestral vs Qwen2.5-VL 7B InstructAlibaba (Qwen)
- Codestral vs Command RCohere
