Simulating realistic Document summarization parameters (25,000 in / 600 out with 10% cache reuse). Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B delivers a 33% cost reduction over Codestral 2501.
Quick answer
For Document summarization, Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is the lower-cost option at $0.00491 per request versus $0.007365 for Codestral 2501, a modeled saving of 33%.
Method & trust
The comparison uses 25,000 input tokens, 600 output tokens, and 10% cache reuse for the selected workload. Pricing is applied per model, then scaled to monthly request volumes.
| Traffic Volume Tier | Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B Monthly | Codestral 2501 Monthly | Monthly Savings by picking Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1,000 reqs/mo (Dev/Testing) | $4.91 | $7.365 | Save $2.455 / mo |
| 10,000 reqs/mo (Small App) | $49.10 | $73.65 | Save $24.55 / mo |
| 100,000 reqs/mo (Growth Production) | $491.00 | $736.50 | Save $245.50 / mo |
| 1,000,000 reqs/mo (Scale SaaS) | $4,910.00 | $7,365.00 | Save $2,455.00 / mo |
Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is 33% cheaper for Document summarization workloads. At standard Document summarization parameter ratios (25,000 input tokens, 600 output tokens, 10% cache hit), Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B costs $0.00491 per request compared to $0.007365 on Codestral 2501.
Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B offers a context window of 128,000 tokens (max output: 8,192), while Codestral 2501 offers 256,000 tokens (max output: 8,192).
At 100,000 requests per month, using Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B saves $245.50 every month (or $2,946.00 annually) compared to Codestral 2501.
Long-context models pay off here — compare price per 1M tokens at your true document size. Summarize once, store the result; don't re-summarize unchanged documents. For batch backfills, nightly jobs can use cache-friendly request ordering.