Code Davinci 002 vs Magistral Small 2506
Code Davinci 002 (2021) and Magistral Small 2506 (2025) compare a coding-specialized model against a standalone API model. Code Davinci 002 ships a not-yet-sourced context window, while Magistral Small 2506 ships a 128k-token context window. This page treats the result as workflow and deployment fit, not a universal model winner.
Treat this as a product-type comparison: Code Davinci 002 is coding-specialized model, while Magistral Small 2506 is standalone API model. Choose based on workflow fit before reading any benchmark or price row as decisive.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Code Davinci 002 | Magistral Small 2506 |
|---|---|---|
| Product type | Coding-specialized model | Standalone API model |
| Best for | custom coding agents and code generation | reasoning-heavy apps |
| Decision fit | Coding | Long context |
| Context window | — | 128k |
| Cheapest output | - | - |
| Provider routes | 0 tracked | 1 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 0 rows | 0 rows |
Decision tradeoffs
- Local decision data tags Code Davinci 002 for Coding.
- Magistral Small 2506 has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- Magistral Small 2506 has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- Magistral Small 2506 uniquely exposes Reasoning in local model data.
- Local decision data tags Magistral Small 2506 for Long context.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.
Code Davinci 002
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
Magistral Small 2506
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
Cost delta unavailable until both models have sourced input and output token prices.
Switch friction
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Code Davinci 002 and Magistral Small 2506; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Magistral Small 2506 adds Reasoning in local capability data.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Magistral Small 2506 and Code Davinci 002; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Check replacement coverage for Reasoning before moving production traffic.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2021-08-16 | 2025-06-10 |
| Context window | — | 128k |
| Parameters | — | 24B |
| Architecture | decoder only | decoder only |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0(OSI) |
| Openness | Proprietary | Open source |
| Commercial use | Commercial use with conditions | Commercial use allowed |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | 2025-06 |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Code Davinci 002 | Magistral Small 2506 |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | - | - |
| Output price | - | - |
| Providers | - |
Pricing not yet sourced for either model.
Capabilities
| Capability | Code Davinci 002 | Magistral Small 2506 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | No | No |
| Multimodal | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Function calling | No | No |
| Tool use | No | No |
| Structured outputs | No | No |
| Code execution | No | No |
| IDE integration | No | No |
| Computer use | No | No |
| Parallel agents | No | No |
Benchmarks
No shared benchmark rows are currently sourced for this pair.
Deep dive
The capability footprint differs most on reasoning mode: Magistral Small 2506. Both models share the core language-model surface, so the practical split is not just feature count. Use those differences to decide whether the page is about raw model quality, agentic coding support, multimodal ingestion, or predictable structured API behavior.
Pricing coverage is uneven: Code Davinci 002 has no token price sourced yet and Magistral Small 2506 has no token price sourced yet. Provider availability is 0 tracked routes versus 1. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.
Choose Code Davinci 002 when coding workflow support are central to the workload. Choose Magistral Small 2506 when reasoning depth and broader provider choice are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship. This keeps the decision grounded in measurable tradeoffs instead of brand-level assumptions. It also helps separate model capability from provider packaging, which can change cost and latency. For teams standardizing a stack, that distinction is often the difference between a benchmark win and a reliable deployment.
FAQ
Is Code Davinci 002 or Magistral Small 2506 open source?
Code Davinci 002 is listed under Proprietary. Magistral Small 2506 is listed under Apache 2.0. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.
Which is better for reasoning mode, Code Davinci 002 or Magistral Small 2506?
Magistral Small 2506 has the clearer documented reasoning mode signal in this comparison. If reasoning mode is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Where can I run Code Davinci 002 and Magistral Small 2506?
Code Davinci 002 is available on the tracked providers still being sourced. Magistral Small 2506 is available on NVIDIA NIM. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
When should I pick Code Davinci 002 over Magistral Small 2506?
Treat this as a product-type comparison: Code Davinci 002 is coding-specialized model, while Magistral Small 2506 is standalone API model. Choose based on workflow fit before reading any benchmark or price row as decisive. If your workload also depends on coding workflow support, start with Code Davinci 002; if it depends on reasoning depth, run the same evaluation with Magistral Small 2506.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-05-22. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.