Codestral 2508 (batch) vs Mistral Medium 3.1 (batch)
| Signal | Codestral 2508 (batch) | Delta | Mistral Medium 3.1 (batch) |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 50 | -17 | |
Pricing | 99 | +1 | |
Context window size | 86 | +5 | |
Recency | 62 | -2 | |
Output Capacity | 85 | +5 | |
| Overall Result | 3 wins | of 5 | 2 wins |
Score History Unavailable
Not enough historical data to show a comparison chart. Score history is recorded weekly and will be available after at least two data points are collected.
40
Codestral 2508 (batch)
40
Mistral Medium 3.1 (batch)
Codestral 2508 (batch)
Mistral AI
Mistral Medium 3.1 (batch)
Mistral AI
Codestral 2508 (batch) saves you $65.00/month
That's $780.00/year compared to Mistral Medium 3.1 (batch) at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Codestral 2508 (batch) | Mistral Medium 3.1 (batch) | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 40 | 40 | -- |
| Rank | #314 | #312 | Mistral Medium 3.1 (batch) |
| Quality Rank | #314 | #312 | Mistral Medium 3.1 (batch) |
| Adoption Rank | #314 | #312 | Mistral Medium 3.1 (batch) |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 256K | 131K | Codestral 2508 (batch) |
| Pricing | $0.30/$0.90/M | $0.40/$2.00/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 50 | 67 | Mistral Medium 3.1 (batch) |
| Pricing | 99 | 98 | Codestral 2508 (batch) |
| Context window size | 86 | 81 | Codestral 2508 (batch) |
| Recency | 62 | 64 | Mistral Medium 3.1 (batch) |
| Output Capacity | 85 | 80 | Codestral 2508 (batch) |
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.
Scores 40/100 (rank #314), placing it in the top -8% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 40/100 (rank #312), placing it in the top -7% 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.
Choose Codestral 2508 (batch) when you need:
- High-volume production workloads where API costs must be minimized
- Processing long documents or large codebases (256K token context)
Choose Mistral Medium 3.1 (batch) when you need:
- Multimodal workflows that require image understanding
Codestral 2508 (batch) offers 50% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $18.00/month with Codestral 2508 (batch) vs $36.00/month with Mistral Medium 3.1 (batch) - 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
Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. Codestral 2508 (batch) 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 (40/100) 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 (batch) and Mistral Medium 3.1 (batch) 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.
By Use Case
Best for Quality
Codestral 2508 (batch)
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Codestral 2508 (batch)
50% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Codestral 2508 (batch)
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Codestral 2508 (batch)
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Codestral 2508 (batch)
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Mistral AI
- Choose for Quality - Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
- Choose for Cost - 50% 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
| Capability | Codestral 2508 (batch) | Mistral Medium 3.1 (batch) |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input)differs | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Codestral 2508 (batch)
Mistral AI
Mistral Medium 3.1 (batch)
Mistral AI
Codestral 2508 (batch) saves you $1.50/month
That's 48% cheaper than Mistral Medium 3.1 (batch) 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 (batch) | Mistral Medium 3.1 (batch) |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 256K | 131K |
| Max Output Tokens | 204,800 | 104,857 |
| Open Source | No | No |
| Created | Aug 1, 2025 | Aug 13, 2025 |