Codex 1 vs Magistral Small 2506
Codex 1 (2025) and Magistral Small 2506 (2025) compare a coding-specialized model against a standalone API model. Codex 1 ships a 192k-token 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: Codex 1 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 | Codex 1 | 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, Agents, and Long context | Long context |
| Context window | 192k | 128k |
| Cheapest output | - | - |
| Provider routes | 0 tracked | 1 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 0 rows | 0 rows |
Decision tradeoffs
- Codex 1 has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- Codex 1 uniquely exposes Code execution in local model data.
- Local decision data tags Codex 1 for Coding, Agents, and Long context.
- Magistral Small 2506 has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- 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.
Codex 1
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 Codex 1 and Magistral Small 2506; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Check replacement coverage for Code execution before moving production traffic.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Magistral Small 2506 and Codex 1; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Codex 1 adds Code execution in local capability data.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2025-05-16 | 2025-06-10 |
| Context window | 192k | 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 | Codex 1 | Magistral Small 2506 |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | - | - |
| Output price | - | - |
| Providers | - |
Pricing not yet sourced for either model.
Capabilities
| Capability | Codex 1 | Magistral Small 2506 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | No | No |
| Multimodal | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Function calling | No | No |
| Tool use | No | No |
| Structured outputs | No | No |
| Code execution | Yes | 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 code execution: Codex 1. Both models share reasoning mode, 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: Codex 1 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 Codex 1 when coding workflow support and larger context windows are central to the workload. Choose Magistral Small 2506 when provider fit 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
Which has a larger context window, Codex 1 or Magistral Small 2506?
Codex 1 supports 192k tokens, while Magistral Small 2506 supports 128k tokens. That gap matters most for long documents, large codebases, retrieval-heavy agents, and conversations where earlier context must remain visible.
Is Codex 1 or Magistral Small 2506 open source?
Codex 1 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, Codex 1 or Magistral Small 2506?
Both Codex 1 and Magistral Small 2506 expose reasoning mode. The better choice depends on benchmark fit, context budget, pricing, and whether your provider route exposes the same capability surface.
Which is better for code execution, Codex 1 or Magistral Small 2506?
Codex 1 has the clearer documented code execution signal in this comparison. If code execution is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Where can I run Codex 1 and Magistral Small 2506?
Codex 1 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 Codex 1 over Magistral Small 2506?
Treat this as a product-type comparison: Codex 1 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 Codex 1; if it depends on provider fit, run the same evaluation with Magistral Small 2506.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-05-22. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.