o3 vs Codestral
Detailed pricing comparison and cost analysis.
Updated September 2026
Cost Simulator
| Feature | o3 | Codestral |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Mistral |
| Input Price (1M) | $2.00 | $0.30 |
| Output Price (1M) | $8.00 | $0.90 |
| Context Window | 200,000 | 256,000 |
Verdict
o3 costs $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $8.00 per 1M output tokens. Codestral costs $0.30 per 1M input tokens and $0.90 per 1M output tokens. Codestral is 85% cheaper on input tokens than o3. For output tokens, Codestral is the more affordable option at $0.90/1M vs $8.00.
On context window, Codestral supports 256,000 tokens — meaning it can fit more conversation history, documents, or code in a single request. This matters for RAG pipelines, long document analysis, and agentic workflows where context builds up over many turns.
When to choose o3
- ✓ You are already integrated with OpenAI
When to choose Codestral
- ✓ You need the lowest input token cost ($ 0.30/1M)
- ✓ Your workload is output-heavy — Codestral generates text cheaper
- ✓ You need a larger context window (256,000 tokens)
- ✓ You are already integrated with Mistral
Use the calculator above to simulate your specific workload and find the exact break-even point. For most applications, the cheapest model is the one that minimises your total monthly bill given your input-to-output token ratio.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is o3 cheaper than Codestral? ▼
Codestral is cheaper on input tokens at $0.30/1M vs $2.00/1M for o3 — a 85% saving.
What is the context window of o3 vs Codestral? ▼
o3 has a 200,000-token context window. Codestral has a 256,000-token context window. Codestral supports the larger context, suitable for longer documents and agentic workflows.
Which model is better: o3 or Codestral? ▼
The best choice depends on your use case. For cost efficiency on input tokens, Codestral is the cheaper option. For maximum context length, Codestral supports 256,000 tokens. Use the comparison table above to find the right fit for your workload.