Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Codestral 2508 for Chatbots

Winner: Claude Haiku 4.5. In our Chatbots tests (persona_consistency, safety_calibration, multilingual) Claude Haiku 4.5 scores 4.0 vs Codestral 2508's 2.67 — a 1.33-point lead on our 1–5 task scale. Haiku outperforms Codestral on persona consistency (5 vs 3), multilingual quality (5 vs 4) and safety calibration (2 vs 1). Codestral 2508 is stronger at structured output (5 vs 4) and is materially cheaper per mTok (input/output cost 0.3/0.9 vs Haiku 1/5). Our recommendation is driven by these task-specific scores and ranks (Haiku rank 11 of 52, Codestral rank 48 of 52) observed in our testing.

anthropic

Claude Haiku 4.5

Overall
4.33/5Strong

Benchmark Scores

Faithfulness
5/5
Long Context
5/5
Multilingual
5/5
Tool Calling
5/5
Classification
4/5
Agentic Planning
5/5
Structured Output
4/5
Safety Calibration
2/5
Strategic Analysis
5/5
Persona Consistency
5/5
Constrained Rewriting
3/5
Creative Problem Solving
4/5

External Benchmarks

SWE-bench Verified
N/A
MATH Level 5
N/A
AIME 2025
N/A

Pricing

Input

$1.00/MTok

Output

$5.00/MTok

Context Window200K

modelpicker.net

mistral

Codestral 2508

Overall
3.50/5Strong

Benchmark Scores

Faithfulness
5/5
Long Context
5/5
Multilingual
4/5
Tool Calling
5/5
Classification
3/5
Agentic Planning
4/5
Structured Output
5/5
Safety Calibration
1/5
Strategic Analysis
2/5
Persona Consistency
3/5
Constrained Rewriting
3/5
Creative Problem Solving
2/5

External Benchmarks

SWE-bench Verified
N/A
MATH Level 5
N/A
AIME 2025
N/A

Pricing

Input

$0.300/MTok

Output

$0.900/MTok

Context Window256K

modelpicker.net

Task Analysis

What Chatbots demand: consistent persona, safe refusals/permissions, and reliable multilingual handling across long conversations. Our Chatbots task uses three targeted tests: persona_consistency (maintaining character and resisting prompt injection), safety_calibration (correctly refuses harmful requests while allowing legitimate ones), and multilingual (equivalent quality across languages). Because no external benchmark is provided for this task, we base the verdict on our internal task score and component scores. In our testing Claude Haiku 4.5: persona_consistency 5, safety_calibration 2, multilingual 5 (taskScore 4.0). Codestral 2508: persona_consistency 3, safety_calibration 1, multilingual 4 (taskScore 2.67). Supporting signals: both models tie on long_context (5) and tool_calling (5), so both can handle long conversations and tool integrations; Codestral leads on structured_output (5 vs 4), which matters for strict JSON or schema responses. These component scores explain why Haiku delivers more consistent character and safer multilingual chat behavior while Codestral offers stronger schema compliance and lower inference cost.

Practical Examples

Claude Haiku 4.5 shines when you need a stable assistant persona across long sessions and multiple languages: e.g., a banking chatbot that must preserve tone, refuse unsafe payment bypass requests, and switch between English and Spanish reliably (persona_consistency 5 vs 3, multilingual 5 vs 4, safety 2 vs 1). Codestral 2508 shines when you need strict, predictable structured outputs and minimal inference spend: e.g., a customer-support webhook that must emit exact JSON order updates or call external tools with strict schema compliance (structured_output 5 vs 4) while minimizing cost (input/output cost per mTok 0.3/0.9 vs Haiku 1/5). Both handle long context and tool calling well (both score 5 on long_context and tool_calling), so multi-turn, tool-enabled bots are viable on either model; choose based on persona/safety vs schema/cost tradeoffs.

Bottom Line

For Chatbots, choose Claude Haiku 4.5 if you prioritize consistent persona, safer refusal behavior, and best-in-task multilingual quality (taskScore 4.0; persona_consistency 5, multilingual 5). Choose Codestral 2508 if you prioritize strict structured-output compliance and lower per-mTok cost (structured_output 5; input/output cost per mTok 0.3/0.9) and can accept weaker persona consistency and safety calibration (taskScore 2.67).

How We Test

We test every model against our 12-benchmark suite covering tool calling, agentic planning, creative problem solving, safety calibration, and more. Each test is scored 1–5 by an LLM judge. Read our full methodology.

Frequently Asked Questions