WritingmateWritingmate
Model Comparison

Codestral 2508 vs Qwen3 Coder 480B A35BWhich Is Better in 2026?

Mistral: Codestral 2508 logoMistral AI•Qwen: Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B logoQwen

Codestral 2508 vs Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B: which should you choose in 2026?

Codestral 2508 (by Mistral AI) and Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B (by Qwen) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.

There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.

Codestral 2508 is about 1.1× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.45 vs $0.475 per 1M tokens).

Choose Codestral 2508 if…

  • • lower blended API cost matters for your workload

Choose Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B if…

  • • your own prompt tests favor its output; shared comparable evidence does not identify a unique advantage

The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.

Chat with both models
vs

Performance benchmarks

Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.

Codestral 2508 and Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B benchmark results
BenchmarkCodestral 2508Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B
AutomationBench-AA

A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework.

Guardrail-aware score

——
BrowseComp

A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing.

Accuracy

——
OSWorld-Verified

A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state.

Mean task reward

——
SWE-Bench Verified

A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests.

Resolved

—
55.4%
SWE-bench
Terminal-Bench 2.1

Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol.

Mean task success

——
AutoBench

A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench.

Weighted peer-assessment score

——
GPQA Diamond

The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry.

Accuracy

——
Humanity's Last Exam

A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged.

Accuracy

——

Benchmark sources

Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09.

Pricing, capabilities, and model facts

Codestral 2508 and Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B model facts
FeatureCodestral 2508Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B
Context & model facts
DeveloperMistral AIQwen
API providerMistralQwen
Input context256,000 tokens262,144 tokens
Maximum output204,800 tokens65,536 tokens
Released——
Added to WritingmateAug 1, 2025Jul 23, 2025
LicenseNot availableNot available
Knowledge cutoff2025-03-312025-06-30
Capabilities
InputsText, FileText
OutputsTextText
Provider endpoint accepts tool parametersYesYes
ReasoningNoNo
VisionNoNo
Image GenerationNoNo
Video GenerationNoNo
API pricing
Input (per 1M tokens)$0.30$0.30
Output (per 1M tokens)$0.90$1.00
Blended 3:1 input/output$0.45$0.475
API performance
p95 latencyNot measuredNot measured
Output throughputNot measuredNot measured
Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table.

Data sources

  • Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)

Catalog data last updated Aug 1, 2025.

Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?

Comparing Codestral 2508 from Mistral AI with Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B from Qwen? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.

Subscription-plan access for Codestral 2508 and Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B
PlanPriceCodestral 2508Qwen3 Coder 480B A35BAI ImagesAI Video
Writingmate Pro
Most popular
$20/moIncludedIncludedNano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & moreVEO 3.1, Kling 3.0
Writingmate Ultimate
Power users
$60/moIncludedIncludedNano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & moreVEO 3.1, Kling 3.0
View Plans & Pricing

Codestral 2508 vs Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B FAQ

Which is better, Codestral 2508 or Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B?

There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. Codestral 2508 is about 1.1× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.45 vs $0.475 per 1M tokens).

Which model is cheaper to use through an API?

Codestral 2508 is about 1.1× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.45 vs $0.475 per 1M tokens).

Which model supports more context?

The published context windows are close enough that this page does not treat the difference as a material advantage.

Can I switch between Codestral 2508 and Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B?

Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.