Model comparison

Codestral vs Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index. Codestral costs 2.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.8 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Codestral Mistral AI

30.1

Rank #287 Reported

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

45.3

Rank #64 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 50.3 to 26.9.
  • Codestral is cheaper at $0.30 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $0.99 / $1.49 for Qwen3.8 27B.
  • Qwen3.8 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 256K.

Side by side

Codestral and Qwen3.8 27B specifications
CodestralQwen3.8 27B
ProviderMistral AIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.145.3
Released2024-05-292026-08-14
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window256K262K
Max output4K33K
Input $ / M tokens$0.30$0.99
Output $ / M tokens$0.90$1.49
Results tracked728

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads

Codestral: 26.9 (#316), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.3 (#42)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkCodestralQwen3.8 27B
Aider Polyglot11.1%—
LMArena WebDev—1592
SciCode—46.6%
BigCodeBench Instruct41.8%—
LMArena Coding—1487
BigCodeBench Complete52.5%—
ALE-Bench137.78—
HumanEval+73.8%—
MBPP+61.9%—

Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads

Codestral: 19.1 (#244), Qwen3.8 27B: 31.5 (#71)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkCodestralQwen3.8 27B
Kagi LLM Benchmark32.5%—
NYT Connections (extended)—54.5%
CritPt—5.4%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1459
DTBench—88%
LMCA—41.4%
Surface Evolver Bench—45%
Epoch Capabilities Index—149.38

Math Not comparable

Codestral: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 35.7 (#139)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkCodestralQwen3.8 27B
ProofBench—16%
LMArena Math—1453

Knowledge Not comparable

Codestral: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 40.9 (#105)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkCodestralQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Expert—1482

Multimodal Not comparable

Codestral: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 40.5 (#36)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkCodestralQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision—1270

Multilingual Not comparable

Codestral: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 54.0 (#54)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkCodestralQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Non-English—1431
LMArena Chinese—1504
LMArena French—1468
LMArena German—1435
LMArena Japanese—1392
LMArena Korean—1389
LMArena Russian—1421
LMArena Spanish—1444

Instruction Following Not comparable

Codestral: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#54)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkCodestralQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Instruction Following—1436

Long Context Not comparable

Codestral: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#66)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkCodestralQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Longer Query—1448

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Codestral: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 65.9 (#41)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkCodestralQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text—1441
LMArena Creative Writing—1382
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1671
LMArena Multi-Turn—1443

Frequently asked questions

Is Codestral better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index. Codestral costs 2.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.8 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Codestral or Qwen3.8 27B?

Codestral is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 27B lists at $0.99 and $1.49.

Is Codestral or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.3 versus 26.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.8 27B does, with 262K tokens against 256K.

How many benchmarks do Codestral and Qwen3.8 27B share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Codestral has 7 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper