Skip to content

Codestral 2508 vs Qwen3.7 Max

Codestral 2508

Mistral AI

40#393
vs
Qwen3.7 Max

Alibaba

40#313
Signal-by-Signal Comparison
SignalCodestral 2508DeltaQwen3.7 Max
Capabilities
50
-17
67
Pricing
99
+4
96
Context window size
86
-9
95
Recency
51
-49
100
Output Capacity
85
+3
82
Overall Result
2 wins
of 5
3 wins
Qwen3.7 Max wins 3 of 5 signals

Score History

Score History (37 data points)
Codestral 2508Qwen3.7 Max
Codestral 2508

40

current score

Leader

Tied

right now

Qwen3.7 Max

40

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

Qwen3.7 Max

Alibaba

Per request$0.003688
Daily$12.29
Monthly$368.75
Annual$4425.00

Codestral 2508 saves you $293.75/month

That's $3525.00/year compared to Qwen3.7 Max at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.

80% cheaper
Choose Codestral 2508 for cost optimization

Codestral 2508 pricing:
Input:$0.30/M tokens
Output:$0.90/M tokens
Qwen3.7 Max pricing:
Input:$1.48/M tokens
Output:$4.42/M tokens
Tie
Codestral 2508

Mistral AI

40

Composite Score

Tie
Qwen3.7 Max

Alibaba

40

Composite Score

Signal-by-Signal Comparison
MetricCodestral 2508Qwen3.7 MaxWinner
Overall Score
40
40
--
Rank#393#313
Qwen3.7 Max
Quality Rank#393#313
Qwen3.7 Max
Adoption Rank#393#313
Qwen3.7 Max
Parameters------
Context Window256K1000K
Qwen3.7 Max
Pricing$0.30/$0.90/M$1.48/$4.42/M--
Signal Scores
Capabilities
50
67
Qwen3.7 Max
Pricing
99
96
Codestral 2508
Context window size
86
95
Qwen3.7 Max
Recency
51
100
Qwen3.7 Max
Output Capacity
85
82
Codestral 2508
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 #393), placing it in the top -35% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100
Qwen3.7 MaxEntry Level

Scores 40/100 (rank #313), placing it in the top -8% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100

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.

When to Use Each Model

Choose Codestral 2508 when you need:

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

Choose Qwen3.7 Max when you need:

  • Processing long documents or large codebases (1000K token context)
  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
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
Qwen3.7 Max
Input cost$1.48/M tokens
Output cost$4.42/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.148
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$88.50

Codestral 2508 offers 80% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $18.00/month with Codestral 2508 vs $88.50/month with Qwen3.7 Max - a $70.50 monthly difference.

Latency & Speed
Codestral 2508Faster
Speed score0/100
Qwen3.7 Max
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 (1000K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass

Qwen3.7 Max

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 (40/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content

Codestral 2508
Which Should You Choose?
Our recommendation:
Codestral 2508

Codestral 2508 and Qwen3.7 Max are extremely close in overall performance (only 0 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.

Codestral 2508
Recommended

by Mistral AI

  • Choose for Quality - Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
  • Choose for Cost - 80% 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

by Alibaba

Consider for specialized use cases.

Capability Comparison
CapabilityCodestral 2508Qwen3.7 Max
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

Qwen3.7 Max

Alibaba

$7.96
estimated monthly cost

Codestral 2508 saves you $6.34/month

That's 80% cheaper than Qwen3.7 Max 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 2508Qwen3.7 Max
Context Window256K1M
Max Output Tokens204,800131,072
Open SourceNoNo
CreatedAug 1, 2025May 21, 2026
Last updated: 23m ago

相关对比

Codestral 2508 vs Qwen3.7 Max (2026) | LM Market Cap