# Codestral vs Qwen2.5-Max

> Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.1 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/codestral-vs-qwen2-5-max
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 41.2 to 26.9.
- Codestral has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Codestral | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Mistral AI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 30.1 | 40.1 |
| Rank | 287 | 142 |
| Context | 256K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.30 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.90 | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Codestral: 26.9 (#316)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.2 (#118)

| Benchmark | Codestral | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 11.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 41.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1359 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 137.78 | — |
| HumanEval+ | 73.8% | — |
| MBPP+ | 61.9% | — |

## Reasoning

- Codestral: 19.1 (#244)
- Qwen2.5-Max: 24.6 (#144)

| Benchmark | Codestral | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 32.5% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1360 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 132.54 |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |

## Math

- Codestral: —
- Qwen2.5-Max: 34.3 (#162)

| Benchmark | Codestral | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1369 |

## Knowledge

- Codestral: —
- Qwen2.5-Max: 34.8 (#181)

| Benchmark | Codestral | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1337 |

## Multilingual

- Codestral: —
- Qwen2.5-Max: 48.3 (#140)

| Benchmark | Codestral | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1382 |
| LMArena French | — | 1396 |
| LMArena German | — | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1299 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1377 |

## Instruction Following

- Codestral: —
- Qwen2.5-Max: 71.5 (#147)

| Benchmark | Codestral | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1335 |

## Long Context

- Codestral: —
- Qwen2.5-Max: 41.3 (#137)

| Benchmark | Codestral | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1358 |

## Writing & Preference

- Codestral: —
- Qwen2.5-Max: 55.6 (#141)

| Benchmark | Codestral | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1339 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1364 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |

## FAQ

### Is Codestral better than Qwen2.5-Max?

Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.1 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Codestral or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?

Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.2 versus 26.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Codestral and Qwen2.5-Max share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Codestral has 7 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.