| Signal | Codestral 2508 | Delta | Mistral Medium 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 50 | -17 | |
Pricing | 1 | -1 | |
Context window size | 86 | +5 | |
Recency | 89 | +16 | |
Output Capacity | 20 | -- | |
| Overall Result | 2 wins | of 5 | 2 wins |
8
days higher
2
days
20
days higher
Mistral AI
Mistral AI
Codestral 2508 saves you $65.00/month
That's $780.00/year compared to Mistral Medium 3 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Codestral 2508 | Mistral Medium 3 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 64 | 65 | Mistral Medium 3 |
| Rank | #202 | #200 | Mistral Medium 3 |
| Quality Rank | #202 | #200 | Mistral Medium 3 |
| Adoption Rank | #202 | #200 | Mistral Medium 3 |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 256K | 131K | Codestral 2508 |
| Pricing | $0.30/$0.90/M | $0.40/$2.00/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 50 | 67 | Mistral Medium 3 |
| Pricing | 1 | 2 | Mistral Medium 3 |
| Context window size | 86 | 81 | Codestral 2508 |
| Recency | 89 | 73 | Codestral 2508 |
| Output Capacity | 20 | 20 | Codestral 2508 |
Our composite score (0–100) combines six weighted signals: benchmark performance (25%), pricing efficiency (25%), context window size (15%), model recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and capability versatility (10%). Here's what the scores mean for these two models:
Scores 64/100 (rank #202), placing it in the top 31% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 65/100 (rank #200), placing it in the top 31% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 0-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
Codestral 2508 offers 50% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $18.00/month with Codestral 2508 vs $36.00/month with Mistral Medium 3 - a $18.00 monthly difference.
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.
Code generation & review
Higher benchmark score (0/100) indicates stronger performance on coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Faster response time (speed score 0/100) is critical for user-facing chat. Codestral 2508 also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (256K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.90/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (65/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
Codestral 2508 and Mistral Medium 3 are extremely close in overall performance (only 0.19999999999998863 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
Best for Quality
Codestral 2508
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Codestral 2508
50% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Codestral 2508
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Codestral 2508
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Codestral 2508
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Mistral AI
| Capability | Codestral 2508 | Mistral Medium 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input)differs | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Mistral AI
Mistral AI
Codestral 2508 saves you $1.50/month
That's 48% cheaper than Mistral Medium 3 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.
| Parameter | Codestral 2508 | Mistral Medium 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 256K | 131K |
| Max Output Tokens | -- | -- |
| Open Source | No | No |
| Created | Aug 1, 2025 | May 7, 2025 |
Mistral Medium 3 scores 65/100 (rank #200) compared to Codestral 2508's 64/100 (rank #202), giving it a 0-point advantage. Mistral Medium 3 is the stronger overall choice, though Codestral 2508 may excel in specific areas like cost efficiency.
Codestral 2508 is ranked #202 and Mistral Medium 3 is ranked #200 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (25%), pricing (25%), context window (15%), recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and versatility (10%). Scores update hourly.
Codestral 2508 is cheaper at $0.90/M output tokens vs Mistral Medium 3's $2.00/M output tokens - 2.2x more expensive. Input token pricing: Codestral 2508 at $0.30/M vs Mistral Medium 3 at $0.40/M.
Codestral 2508 has a larger context window of 256,000 tokens compared to Mistral Medium 3's 131,072 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.