Claude Opus 4.6 vs Codestral 2508

For professional, agentic and safety-critical workflows pick Claude Opus 4.6 — it wins the majority of benchmarks (6 of 12) and ranks top in strategic analysis and safety calibration in our testing. Codestral 2508 is the pragmatic choice when you need best-in-class structured output and a much lower price point.

anthropic

Claude Opus 4.6

Overall
4.58/5Strong

Benchmark Scores

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

External Benchmarks

SWE-bench Verified
78.7%
MATH Level 5
N/A
AIME 2025
94.4%

Pricing

Input

$5.00/MTok

Output

$25.00/MTok

Context Window1000K

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

Benchmark Analysis

Head-to-head across our 12-test suite: Claude Opus 4.6 wins six benchmarks in our testing — strategic analysis (5 vs 2), creative problem solving (5 vs 2), safety calibration (5 vs 1), persona consistency (5 vs 3), agentic planning (5 vs 4) and multilingual (5 vs 4). Codestral 2508 wins structured output (5 vs 4). Five tests tie: tool calling (5/5), faithfulness (5/5), long context (5/5), constrained rewriting (3/3) and classification (3/3). Context from rankings: Opus’s strategic analysis score is tied for 1st of 54 models and its SWE-bench Verified score is 78.7% (Epoch AI), while Opus places 4th on AIME 2025 (94.4% per Epoch AI). By contrast, Codestral ranks tied for 1st on structured output (top tier for JSON/schema adherence) while ranking much lower on strategic analysis and creative problem solving (44/54 and 47/54 respectively). Practically, Opus’s 5/5 strategic analysis and safety calibration mean it better handles nuanced tradeoffs and refuses harmful requests in our tests; Codestral’s 5/5 structured output means it is superior for strict schema compliance, fill-in-the-middle and code-correction pipelines.

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Codestral 2508
Faithfulness5/55/5
Long Context5/55/5
Multilingual5/54/5
Tool Calling5/55/5
Classification3/53/5
Agentic Planning5/54/5
Structured Output4/55/5
Safety Calibration5/51/5
Strategic Analysis5/52/5
Persona Consistency5/53/5
Constrained Rewriting3/53/5
Creative Problem Solving5/52/5
Summary6 wins1 wins

Pricing Analysis

Claude Opus 4.6 is dramatically more expensive: input $5/mTok and output $25/mTok versus Codestral 2508 at $0.30/mTok input and $0.90/mTok output (priceRatio 27.78 in the payload). Using a 50/50 input-output split as a practical example, Opus costs $15,000 per 1M total tokens, $150,000 per 10M, and $1,500,000 per 100M. Codestral costs $600 per 1M, $6,000 per 10M, and $60,000 per 100M. Startups, high-volume APIs, and cost-sensitive production workloads should care about this gap; teams that need top safety, strategic reasoning and agentic capability may justify Opus’s higher spend for lower-volume, high-value tasks.

Real-World Cost Comparison

TaskClaude Opus 4.6Codestral 2508
iChat response$0.014<$0.001
iBlog post$0.053$0.0020
iDocument batch$1.35$0.051
iPipeline run$13.50$0.510

Bottom Line

Choose Claude Opus 4.6 if you need high-stakes agentic planning, strategic reasoning, multi‑lingual parity, long-context retrieval, or safety-calibrated outputs and can absorb higher per-token costs. Choose Codestral 2508 if you need best-in-class structured output (JSON/schema), low-latency, high-frequency coding tasks or are operating at high token volumes where cost (about $600 per 1M tokens at 50/50) is decisive.

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