Llama 4 (Meta) vs Codestral 2 (Mistral)

Which one should you pick? Here's the full breakdown.

Our Pick

Llama 4 (Meta)

B
7.9/10

Meta's open-weights flagship family -- Scout (10M context), Maverick (multimodal 400B MoE), Behemoth in preview

Codestral 2 (Mistral)

B
7.5/10

Mistral's dedicated code model -- Codestral 2 (launched 2026-04-08) relicensed under Apache 2.0, removing the commercial-use restrictions of the original. 22B dense, strong FIM (fill-in-middle), available via Mistral API + Hugging Face

CategoryLlama 4 (Meta)Codestral 2 (Mistral)
Ease of Use5.06.0
Output Quality8.58.0
Value9.09.0
Features9.07.0
Overall7.97.5

Pricing Comparison

FeatureLlama 4 (Meta)Codestral 2 (Mistral)
Free TierYesYes
Starting Price$0$0

Benchmark Head-to-Head

Llama 4 Maverick (17B/400B MoE) benchmarks — Codestral 2 (Mistral) has no published benchmarks

BenchmarkScore
MMLU-Pro80.5%
GPQA Diamond69.8%
HumanEval88%
MMMU (multimodal)73.4%

Which Should You Pick?

Pick Llama 4 (Meta) if...

  • More features (9 vs 7)

Developers and teams who need a permissively-licensed open-weights model with strong tooling, long context (Scout), or multimodal (Maverick). Safe default choice given the ecosystem.

Visit Llama 4 (Meta)

Pick Codestral 2 (Mistral) if...

  • Easier to use (6 vs 5)

Developers and teams who want a legally-clean open-weights code model they can self-host OR hit via API, particularly those with EU data-residency requirements. Ideal for building in-house IDE extensions, code-review bots, or CI/CD AI integrations where the Apache 2.0 license removes procurement friction.

Visit Codestral 2 (Mistral)

Our Verdict

Llama 4 (Meta) edges out Codestral 2 (Mistral) with a 7.9 vs 7.5 overall score. Both are solid picks, but Llama 4 (Meta) has the advantage in output quality.