Model comparison

Codestral vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 30.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

Codestral Mistral AI

30.6

Rank #290 Reported

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.5

Rank #112 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Codestral scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 2 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 33.7 to 19.8.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $0.90 for Codestral.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 256K.

Side by side

Codestral and Qwen3.5-Flash specifications
CodestralQwen3.5-Flash
ProviderMistral AIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.642.5
Released2024-05-292026-02-23
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window256K1M
Max output8K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.30$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$0.90$0.40
Results tracked732

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Codestral: 27.3 (#321), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkCodestralQwen3.5-Flash
ALE-Bench137.78221.8
Aider Polyglot11.1%—
LMArena WebDev—1244
BigCodeBench Instruct41.8%—
LMArena Coding—1412
BigCodeBench Complete52.5%—
HumanEval+73.8%—
MBPP+61.9%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Codestral: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkCodestralQwen3.5-Flash
Vending-Bench 2—462.69

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Codestral: 19.8 (#251), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkCodestralQwen3.5-Flash
Kagi LLM Benchmark32.5%—
Chess Puzzles—21%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1403
Mystery Game Puzzles—20%
DTBench—82.9%
LMCA—29.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.98

Math Not comparable

Codestral: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkCodestralQwen3.5-Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—18.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—84.4%
LMArena Math—1407
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—6.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Not comparable

Codestral: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkCodestralQwen3.5-Flash
GPQA Diamond—82.3%
SimpleQA Verified—20.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%
LMArena Expert—1407

Multilingual Not comparable

Codestral: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkCodestralQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English—1385
LMArena Chinese—1446
LMArena French—1412
LMArena German—1390
LMArena Japanese—1368
LMArena Korean—1344
LMArena Russian—1379
LMArena Spanish—1400

Instruction Following Not comparable

Codestral: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkCodestralQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following—1374

Long Context Not comparable

Codestral: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkCodestralQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query—1392

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Codestral: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkCodestralQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text—1397
LMArena Creative Writing—1343
LMArena Multi-Turn—1393

Frequently asked questions

Is Codestral better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 30.6 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Codestral or Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Codestral lists at $0.30 and $0.90.

Is Codestral or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

Qwen3.5-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.2 versus 27.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 256K.

How many benchmarks do Codestral and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Codestral has 7 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper