Skip to content

Codestral 2508 vs GLM 5

Codestral 2508

Mistral AI

40#365
vs
GLM 5

Zhipu AI

78#109
Signal-by-Signal Comparison
SignalCodestral 2508DeltaGLM 5
Capabilities
50
-17
67
Pricing
99
+1
98
Context window size
86
+2
84
Recency
59
-35
94
Output Capacity
85
+3
82
Benchmarks
0
-81
81
Overall Result
3 wins
of 6
3 wins
It's a tie - both models win 3 signals each

Score History

Score History (30 data points)
Codestral 2508GLM 5
Codestral 2508

40

current score

Leader

GLM 5

right now

GLM 5

78

current score

LMMarketCap.com
Interactive Price Comparison
100Kcalls/month
1,000tokens (~1,333 chars)
500tokens (~667 chars)

Codestral 2508

Mistral AI

Best Value
Per request$0.000750
Daily$2.50
Monthly$75.00
Annual$900.00

GLM 5

Zhipu AI

Per request$0.001560
Daily$5.20
Monthly$156.00
Annual$1872.00

Codestral 2508 saves you $81.00/month

That's $972.00/year compared to GLM 5 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.

52% cheaper
Choose Codestral 2508 for cost optimization

Codestral 2508 pricing:
Input:$0.30/M tokens
Output:$0.90/M tokens
GLM 5 pricing:
Input:$0.60/M tokens
Output:$1.92/M tokens
Codestral 2508

Mistral AI

40

Composite Score

Winner
GLM 5

Zhipu AI

78

Composite Score

Signal-by-Signal Comparison
MetricCodestral 2508GLM 5Winner
Overall Score
40
78
GLM 5
Rank#365#109
GLM 5
Quality Rank#365#109
GLM 5
Adoption Rank#365#109
GLM 5
Parameters------
Context Window256K205K
Codestral 2508
Pricing$0.30/$0.90/M$0.60/$1.92/M--
Signal Scores
Capabilities
50
67
GLM 5
Pricing
99
98
Codestral 2508
Context window size
86
84
Codestral 2508
Recency
59
94
GLM 5
Output Capacity
85
82
Codestral 2508
Benchmarks--
81
GLM 5
Benchmark Head-to-Head(2 benchmarks)
Codestral 2508: 0GLM 5: 0
Codestral 2508
GLM 5
Normalized 0-100%
MMLU-Pro
-86%
Arena Elo
-1458
Benchmark Interpretation

Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.

Codestral 2508Entry Level

Scores 40/100 (rank #365), placing it in the top -26% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100
GLM 5Strong Performer

Scores 78/100 (rank #109), placing it in the top 63% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100

GLM 5 has a 38-point advantage, which typically translates to noticeably stronger performance on complex reasoning, code generation, and multi-step tasks.

When to Use Each Model

Choose Codestral 2508 when you need:

  • High-volume production workloads where API costs must be minimized

Choose GLM 5 when you need:

  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
  • Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model
Cost-Performance Analysis
Codestral 2508Best Value
Input cost$0.30/M tokens
Output cost$0.90/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.030
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$18.00
GLM 5
Input cost$0.60/M tokens
Output cost$1.92/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.032
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$37.80

Codestral 2508 offers 52% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $18.00/month with Codestral 2508 vs $37.80/month with GLM 5 - a $19.80 monthly difference.

Latency & Speed
Codestral 2508Faster
Speed score0/100
GLM 5
Speed score0/100

Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.

When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.

Example Use Cases

Code generation & review

Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring

Codestral 2508

Customer support chatbot

Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. Codestral 2508 also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support

Codestral 2508

Long document analysis

Larger context window (256K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass

Codestral 2508

Batch data extraction

Lower output pricing ($0.90/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily

Codestral 2508

Creative writing & content

Higher overall composite score (78/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content

GLM 5
Which Should You Choose?
Our recommendation:
GLM 5

GLM 5 clearly outperforms Codestral 2508 with a significant 38-point lead. For most general use cases, GLM 5 is the stronger choice. However, Codestral 2508 may still excel in niche scenarios.

by Mistral AI

  • Choose for Quality - Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
  • Choose for Cost - 52% lower pricing; better value at scale
  • Choose for Reliability - Higher uptime and faster response speeds
  • Choose for Prototyping - Stronger community support and better developer experience
  • Choose for Production - Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
GLM 5
Recommended

by Zhipu AI

Consider for specialized use cases.

Capability Comparison
CapabilityCodestral 2508GLM 5
Vision (Image Input)
Function Calling
Streaming
JSON Mode
Reasoningdiffers
Web Search
Image Output
Monthly Cost Calculator
1,000tokens (600 in / 400 out)
100requests/day (3,000/month)

Codestral 2508

Mistral AI

Best Value
$1.62
estimated monthly cost

GLM 5

Zhipu AI

$3.38
estimated monthly cost

Codestral 2508 saves you $1.76/month

That's 52% cheaper than GLM 5 at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.

Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.

Parameters & Context
ParameterCodestral 2508GLM 5
Context Window256K205K
Max Output Tokens204,800128,000
Open SourceNoYes
CreatedAug 1, 2025Feb 11, 2026
Last updated: 37m ago

Related comparisons

Codestral 2508 vs GLM 5 (2026) | LM Market Cap