Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Codestral 2508 vs GLM 4.7

Updated October 21, 2026. 7 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Codestral 2508Mistral AI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.90
0
GLM 4.7Z.ai
Coding
55.1
Overall
22.2
Output $/M
$2.20
7
vs boards won of 7 shared

Decision reading

Only GLM 4.7 has a coding score, 55.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; Codestral 2508 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Codestral 2508 has the edge where output tokens cost 2.4x less, and where the context window is larger, 256K against 205K tokens.

Shared results
7
Codestral 2508 only
0
GLM 4.7 only
73
Like-for-like categories
2 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Codestral 2508 not benchmarked, GLM 4.7 55.1 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Web design, 24.5 points apart on average over 6 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Design Arena: game dev: Codestral 2508 968 against GLM 4.7 1188, 27.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Codestral 2508 $0.90 against GLM 4.7 $2.20 per million output tokens, 2.4x apart.
Context window
Codestral 2508 takes 256K tokens, GLM 4.7 205K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryCodestral 2508BarsGLM 4.7Ties
Coding01
Web design06
All shared boards07
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
Coding benchmarks for Codestral 2508 and GLM 4.7
BenchmarkCodestral 2508GLM 4.7Leader
LMArena WebDevNot measured1435Only GLM 4.7 measured
AA Coding IndexNot measured45.3Only GLM 4.7 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured82.2%Only GLM 4.7 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured69.4%Only GLM 4.7 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured89.4%Only GLM 4.7 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured31.8%Only GLM 4.7 measured
Terminal-BenchNot measured33.4%Only GLM 4.7 measured
ALE-Bench137.8399.5GLM 4.7
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1454Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1453Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1420Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1447Only GLM 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for Codestral 2508 and GLM 4.7
BenchmarkCodestral 2508GLM 4.7Leader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured22.2Only GLM 4.7 measured
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured143.6Only GLM 4.7 measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Codestral 2508 and GLM 4.7
BenchmarkCodestral 2508GLM 4.7Leader
Design Arena: agents building full-stack appsNot measured1050Only GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile appsNot measured1105Only GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android appsNot measured1119Only GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured1058Only GLM 4.7 measured
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured95.9%Only GLM 4.7 measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$2,377Only GLM 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for Codestral 2508 and GLM 4.7
BenchmarkCodestral 2508GLM 4.7Leader
GPQA DiamondNot measured80.0%Only GLM 4.7 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured85.9%Only GLM 4.7 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured27.4%Only GLM 4.7 measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured83.3%Only GLM 4.7 measured
SimpleBenchNot measured47.7%Only GLM 4.7 measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured21.0%Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1443Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1424Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1452Only GLM 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Codestral 2508 and GLM 4.7
BenchmarkCodestral 2508GLM 4.7Leader
AIMENot measured93.3%Only GLM 4.7 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)Not measured88.2%Only GLM 4.7 measured
AA Math IndexNot measured95.0Only GLM 4.7 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured95.0%Only GLM 4.7 measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured83.3%Only GLM 4.7 measured
ProofBenchNot measured6.0%Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1424Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1411Only GLM 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index13 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Codestral 2508 and GLM 4.7
BenchmarkCodestral 2508GLM 4.7Leader
MMLU ProNot measured82.7%Only GLM 4.7 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured83.4%Only GLM 4.7 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured54.9%Only GLM 4.7 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured46.4%Only GLM 4.7 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured68.8%Only GLM 4.7 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured93.7%Only GLM 4.7 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured32.8%Only GLM 4.7 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured85.6%Only GLM 4.7 measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured32.2%Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1457Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1469Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1444Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1429Only GLM 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
Web design benchmarks for Codestral 2508 and GLM 4.7
BenchmarkCodestral 2508GLM 4.7Leader
Design Arena: websites10131226GLM 4.7
Design Arena: UI components10171199GLM 4.7
Design Arena: game dev9681188GLM 4.7
Design Arena: data viz10171195GLM 4.7
Design Arena: 3D10201191GLM 4.7
Design Arena: all code categories10071217GLM 4.7
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1143Only GLM 4.7 measured
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured1165Only GLM 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index22 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for Codestral 2508 and GLM 4.7
BenchmarkCodestral 2508GLM 4.7Leader
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured68.6%Only GLM 4.7 measured
IFBenchNot measured67.9%Only GLM 4.7 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured71.0%Only GLM 4.7 measured
CL-benchNot measured15.9%Only GLM 4.7 measured
CL-bench LifeNot measured10.9%Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena TextNot measured1435Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1412Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1401Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1453Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1417Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1495Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1426Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1439Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1399Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1432Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1434Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1423Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1435Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1446Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1432Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1411Only GLM 4.7 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1400Only GLM 4.7 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Codestral 2508 and GLM 4.7
BenchmarkCodestral 2508GLM 4.7Leader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Codestral 2508$0.0008Fits in one request
GLM 4.7$0.0017Fits in one request

Codestral 2508 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Codestral 2508$0.018Fits in one request
GLM 4.7$0.037Fits in one request

Codestral 2508 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Codestral 2508$0.069Fits in one request
GLM 4.7$0.142Exceeds the context window

Codestral 2508 costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Codestral 2508 and GLM 4.7
SpecificationMistral Codestral 2508Z.ai GLM 4.7
MakerMistral AIZ.ai
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedAugust 1, 2025December 22, 2025
Context window256K205K
Input $/Mtok$0.30$0.60
Output $/Mtok$0.90$2.20
Coding indexNot benchmarked55.1
Independent measurements behind it02
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.29
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Codestral 2508 better than GLM 4.7 for coding?

Only GLM 4.7 has a coding score, 55.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; Codestral 2508 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Codestral 2508 has the edge where output tokens cost 2.4x less, and where the context window is larger, 256K against 205K tokens.

Which is cheaper, Codestral 2508 or GLM 4.7?

Codestral 2508 costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; GLM 4.7 costs $0.60 and $2.20. Cost per solved task is known for GLM 4.7 only.

Which has the bigger context window, Codestral 2508 or GLM 4.7?

Codestral 2508, with 256K tokens against 205K.

How many benchmarks is the Codestral 2508 vs GLM 4.7 comparison based on?

7 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Codestral 2508's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GLM 4.7's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next