Mistral Nemo is $0.38 cheaper per 1M input tokens (95% lower; 20x difference).
API cost decision in 10 seconds
Mistral Nemo vs Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Pick Mistral Nemo when budget is the priority.
Page updated:
Data confirmed:
Prices normalized to USD per 1M tokens
Sample workload: 1M input + 500K output
Budget verdict
Pick Mistral Nemo when budget is the priority.
On the standard 1M input plus 500K output workload, Mistral Nemo is estimated at $0.04 vs $0.6 for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct, saving $0.57 (94.2% lower).
Cost-first pickMistral Nemo
Context-first pickBoth models
Sample savings$0.5794.2%
10x traffic gap$5.65
The reported context window is tied, so cost and provider fit carry more weight. At 10x that traffic, the same price gap is about $5.65. Use the calculator below to replace the sample workload with your own token volume.
Cost sensitivity
Workload Sensitivity
Mistral Nemo stays cheaper across input-heavy, balanced, and output-heavy sample workloads.
| Workload shape | Token mix | Better pick | Mistral Nemo | Llama 3.1 70B Instruct |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Input-heavy / RAG | 5M input + 500K output | Mistral Nemo | $0.12 | $2.2 |
| Balanced workload | 1M input + 1M output | Mistral Nemo | $0.05 | $0.8 |
| Output-heavy chatbot | 1M input + 5M output | Mistral Nemo | $0.17 | $2.4 |
Mistral Nemo is $0.37 cheaper per 1M output tokens (92.5% lower; 13.3x difference).
Both models report the same context window at 131.07K tokens.
Mistral Nemo is $0.57 cheaper on the standard workload (94.2% lower).
Estimate your workload cost
Your Workload Cost
This estimate uses normalized public API pricing per 1M tokens. It is a planning aid, not a billing quote. Verify provider pricing, limits, and terms before production use.
Quick Decision
Mistral Nemo has the lower input price; Mistral Nemo has the lower output price; both models report the same context window. For the 1M input plus 500K output sample, Mistral Nemo is cheaper for the standard workload.
For a 1M input token plus 500K output token workload, the estimated API cost is $0.04 for Mistral Nemo and $0.6 for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct.
Choose Mistral Nemo when you care most about lower input-token price, and lower output-token price.
Choose Llama 3.1 70B Instruct when its provider, model quality, latency, or availability is more important than the numeric price/context winner.
- On the standard 1M input plus 500K output workload, Mistral Nemo is estimated at $0.04 vs $0.6 for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct, saving $0.57 (94.2% lower).
- Mistral Nemo is $0.57 cheaper on the standard workload (94.2% lower).
- Mistral Nemo is $0.38 cheaper per 1M input tokens (95% lower; 20x difference).
- Mistral Nemo is $0.37 cheaper per 1M output tokens (92.5% lower; 13.3x difference).
- Both models report the same context window at 131.07K tokens.
| Feature | Mistral Nemo (Mistral) | Llama 3.1 70B Instruct (Meta) |
|---|---|---|
| Input Price prompt tokens per 1M | $0.02 | $0.4 |
| Completion Price per 1M tokens | $0.03 | $0.4 |
| Sample Workload Cost 1M input + 500K output | $0.04 | $0.6 |
| Context Window | 131.07K | 131.07K |
| Release Date | ||
| Popularity | #34 | #87 |
Use-Case Decision Matrix
| Use case | Better pick | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Budget-constrained production | Mistral Nemo | On the standard 1M input plus 500K output workload, Mistral Nemo is estimated at $0.04 vs $0.6 for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct, saving $0.57 (94.2% lower). |
| High-volume input processing | Mistral Nemo | Lower prompt-token price matters most when prompts, retrieved passages, or documents dominate the bill. |
| Long responses and chatbots | Mistral Nemo | Lower output-token price matters most when assistants generate many completion tokens. |
| RAG or long-document work | Tie | A larger context window leaves more room for retrieved passages, conversation history, or source files. |
Related Alternatives
- Llama 3.3 70B Instruct (free) can replace Llama 3.1 70B Instruct when lower sample workload cost matters most: $0.
- Llama 3.2 3B Instruct (free) can replace Llama 3.1 70B Instruct when lower sample workload cost matters most: $0.
- Llama 3.1 8B Instruct can replace Llama 3.1 70B Instruct when lower sample workload cost matters most: $0.04.
- Llama 3 8B Instruct can replace Llama 3.1 70B Instruct when lower sample workload cost matters most: $0.06.
- Llama 4 Scout offers 10M context with $0.23 sample workload cost.
- Owl Alpha offers 1.05M context with $0 sample workload cost.
- DeepSeek V4 Flash offers 1.05M context with $0.2 sample workload cost.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite offers 1.05M context with $0.3 sample workload cost.
- DeepSeek V4 Flash · DeepSeek · #1
- Hy3 preview · Tencent · #2
- Claude Opus 4.7 · Anthropic · #3
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 · Anthropic · #4
Cheaper alternatives
Review low-cost models sorted by a standard 1M input plus 500K output workload.
Open cheapest modelsLarger context alternatives
Find models with larger context windows for RAG, long documents, and codebase review.
Open largest context modelsProvider catalogs
Compare models within provider hubs before choosing a final API vendor.
Open provider hubsMistral catalog
Review all tracked Mistral models before deciding whether this matchup is the right shortlist.
Open Mistral modelsMeta catalog
Check other Meta models with comparable pricing, context, or release timing.
Open Meta modelsA 12B parameter model with a 128k token context length built by Mistral in collaboration with NVIDIA. The model is multilingual, supporting English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Chinese, Japanese,...
Meta's latest class of model (Llama 3.1) launched with a variety of sizes & flavors. This 70B instruct-tuned version is optimized for high quality dialogue usecases. It has demonstrated strong...