Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) Paid vs 
Codestral 2508 (batch) Paid
Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) vs Codestral 2508 (batch) compared — price per token, context window, multimodality, openness and which to choose. Full 2026 breakdown.
Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) — full profile › · Codestral 2508 (batch) — full profile ›
Prices & specs refreshed from live data · olud.ai
Open-model prices = cheapest provider via OpenRouter; official maker rates may be higher.
$25 /M outputManaged API (no infra to run)
$0.45 /M outputManaged API (no infra to run)
Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) vs Codestral 2508 (batch) specs
| Spec | Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) | Codestral 2508 (batch) | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maker | Anthropic | Mistral AI | – |
| Type | Proprietary | Proprietary | – |
| Context window | 1M tokens | 256K tokens | |
| Input price | $5/M | $0.15/M | |
| Output price | $25/M | $0.45/M | |
| Vision / multimodal | Yes | No | |
| Tool / function calling | Yes | Yes | = Tie |
| Self-hostable | No (API only) | No (API only) | – |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary | – |
Price gap & when to choose each
Codestral 2508 (batch) is ~56× cheaper than Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) on output tokens ($0.45 vs $25 per M tokens).
- You want frontier performance through a managed API
- You need the longer 1M context window
- You value reliability & ecosystem
- You don't want to manage infrastructure
- You want frontier performance through a managed API
- You want the lower output price
- You value reliability & ecosystem
- You don't want to manage infrastructure
Feature comparison
| Capability | Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) | Codestral 2508 (batch) |
|---|---|---|
| Open weights (downloadable) | ✗ | ✗ |
| Self-hostable | ✗ | ✗ |
| Runs fully offline | ✗ | ✗ |
| Vision / multimodal | ✓ | ✗ |
| Tool / function calling | ✓ | ✓ |
| 1M+ context window | ✓ | ✗ |
Benchmarks: Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) vs Codestral 2508 (batch)
Independent benchmark scores measured by Artificial Analysis. Higher is better (except latency).
Benchmark data by Artificial Analysis.
How Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) and Codestral 2508 (batch) score
| Criterion | Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) | Codestral 2508 (batch) |
|---|---|---|
| Cost-efficiency | 3.0 | 5.0 |
| Context window | 5.0 | 4.0 |
| Openness | 1.5 | 1.5 |
| Self-hosting | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Multimodality | 5.0 | 3.5 |
Scores come from live data — output price (cost), context length, open vs closed weights (openness & self-hosting) and vision/tool support (multimodality). Raw task quality isn't scored here; it depends on your benchmark — see the verdict.
What each model is
Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) Paid
Claude Fable 5.1 improves on Claude Fable 5 across the board, with the biggest gains in agentic coding, long-running agentic workflows, and knowledge work: long code refactors, front-end and visual...
Codestral 2508 (batch) Paid
Mistral's cutting-edge language model for coding released end of July 2025. Codestral specializes in low-latency, high-frequency tasks such as fill-in-the-middle (FIM), code correction and test generation. [Blog Post](https://mistral.ai/ne
Frequently asked questions
Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) vs Codestral 2508 (batch) — which is cheaper?
Codestral 2508 (batch) is cheaper on output ($0.45/M vs $25/M).
Which has the larger context window?
Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) offers the larger context window (1M tokens).
Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) vs Codestral 2508 (batch) — which should I pick in 2026?
Choose Codestral 2508 (batch) for the lower output price ($0.45/M vs $25/M). Choose Claude Fable 5.1 (batch) if you need the larger 1M context window.
People also compare
Explore more open-source AI
Browse the full open-source model leaderboard, thousands of tools and live benchmarks — all in one place.
Open the leaderboard →