Directory · Model comparison
Codestral vs GPT-4.1 mini
Side-by-side API economics and benchmarks. Per-1M input and output rates, context window, and verified metrics.
Tale of the tape
Head-to-head specs pulled from each model profile.
| Metric | Codestral | GPT-4.1 mini |
|---|---|---|
| Input cost / 1M | $0.30 | $0.40 |
| Output cost / 1M | $0.90 | $1.60 |
| Context window | 128,000 tokens | 1,047,576 tokens |
| MMLU score | — | — |
Cost verdict
Enter monthly input and output volumes to see total cost savings.
Codestral
- Input: 1M × $0.30 = $0.30
- Output: 1M × $0.90 = $0.90
- Total
- $1.20
GPT-4.1 mini
- Input: 1M × $0.40 = $0.40
- Output: 1M × $1.60 = $1.60
- Total
- $2.00
Total cost savings
$0.80
Codestral saves $0.80 per month vs the other model at this volume.
Model routing savings
Uses this page's verified rates. GPT-4.1 mini is the premium route (higher combined per-1M cost); Codestral handles routine traffic.
All premium
GPT-4.1 mini
$100.00
100% of input and output on the premium route
Routed stack
80% → Codestral
20% → GPT-4.1 mini
$68.00
- Routine slice
- $48.00
- Premium slice
- $20.00
Monthly savings
$32.00
32% lower
Rates pulled from this page's model database entries (gpt-4-1-mini, codestral) — same per-1M input/output figures as Tale of the tape. Production routing needs quality gates and monitoring.
Related comparisons
More head-to-head model matchups.