Verified November 2026

Home › Compare › Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Mistral Nemo

Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Mistral Nemo

A straight cost comparison of Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Anthropic) and Mistral Nemo (Mistral AI), per 1,000,000 tokens, verified November 2026.

$3Claude Sonnet 4.6 input / 1M
$0.15Mistral Nemo input / 1M
97%Blended price gap
Mistral NemoCheaper blended

Rate-by-rate comparison

USD per 1M tokens · November 2026
MetricClaude Sonnet 4.6Mistral NemoWinner
Input / 1M$3$0.15Mistral Nemo
Cached input / 1M$0.30$0.015Mistral Nemo
Cache write / 1M$3.75—Mistral Nemo
Output / 1M$15$0.15Mistral Nemo
Context window1,000,000128,000Claude Sonnet 4.6
Batch APIYesYesTie
Long-context tierNoneNone—

For per-token metrics, the lower number wins. For context window and batch support, the higher or broader option wins. A dash means the provider does not publish that rate: a missing cache-write fee means writes are not billed per token, while a missing cached-input rate means cache hits bill at the full input rate.

Blended cost: 1M input + 250K output

ModelBlended costDifference
Claude Sonnet 4.6$6.75+$6.56
Mistral Nemo$0.188Cheaper

Ten workloads, two bills

The same two models, priced across ten workloads that differ only in their input:output ratio. Nothing else changes — no retries, no system prompt, no middleware.

WorkloadClaude Sonnet 4.6Mistral NemoWinner
Classification
100K reqs · 500 in / 10 out
$165$7.65Mistral Nemo
Data extraction
10K reqs · 2K in / 200 out
$90$3.30Mistral Nemo
Support chat
1K reqs · 4K in / 600 out
$21$0.69Mistral Nemo
Code review
2K reqs · 8K in / 1.5K out
$93$2.85Mistral Nemo
Summarisation
1K reqs · 20K in / 1K out
$75$3.15Mistral Nemo
Agent loop
5K reqs · 12K in / 2K out
$330$10.50Mistral Nemo
Translation
500 reqs · 15K in / 15K out
$135$2.25Mistral Nemo
Long-document QA
200 reqs · 120K in / 800 out
$74.40$3.62Mistral Nemo
Cached RAG
1K reqs · 50K in (45K cached) / 1K out
$43.66$1.58Mistral Nemo
Nightly batch
10K reqs · 10K in / 2K out
$300$9Mistral Nemo

Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins 0 of 10, Mistral Nemo wins 10 of 10. The winner is set by the token mix, not by the headline rate.

Where the two bills cross over

Mistral Nemo is cheaper on both sides of the mix: $0.15 vs $3 per million input tokens, and $0.15 vs $15 per million output. No input:output ratio reverses that, so on price alone the other model never becomes the better choice — it has to win on context, latency or output quality.

Cost at four scales

The same support-chat workload (4K input, 600 output per request) at four monthly volumes.

Requests / monthClaude Sonnet 4.6Mistral NemoDifference
100$2.10$0.069Mistral Nemo cheaper by $2.03
1,000$21$0.69Mistral Nemo cheaper by $20.31
10,000$210$6.90Mistral Nemo cheaper by $203
100,000$2,100$69Mistral Nemo cheaper by $2,031

What caching does to each bill

Caching only helps the part of the prompt that repeats. This is the support-chat workload (1,000 requests, 4,000 input tokens each) with an increasing share of that prompt served from a warm cache, written once on the first request.

Cached share of the promptClaude Sonnet 4.6Mistral NemoWinner
0%$21$0.69Mistral Nemo
50%$15.61$0.42Mistral Nemo
80%$12.37$0.258Mistral Nemo
95%$10.75$0.178Mistral Nemo

Both models publish a cached-read rate, so the discount is comparable: Claude Sonnet 4.6 reads cache at $0.30 per million, Mistral Nemo at $0.015.

Which one should you pick?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins on none of the ten workloads above, while Mistral Nemo wins on classification, data extraction, support chat, code review, summarisation, agent loop, translation, long-document qa, cached rag, nightly batch.

Beyond price, the two differ on input rate ($3 vs $0.15); output rate ($15 vs $0.15); cached-input rate ($0.30 vs $0.015); cache-write rate ($3.75 vs —); context window (1,000,000 vs 128,000).

Batch mode is available on Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Mistral Nemo, which halves the nightly job. Both publish cached-input discounts, so a stable system prompt is worth caching on either.

FAQ

Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 cheaper than Mistral Nemo?

On a blended 1M-input-plus-250K-output workload, Mistral Nemo is cheaper by 97% ($0.188 vs $6.75). The gap changes for cache-heavy prompts and for batch jobs, as the workload table shows.

Which handles longer prompts, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Mistral Nemo?

Mistral Nemo has the larger context window (1,000,000 vs 128,000 tokens). Neither model publishes a long-context surcharge.

Do both models support prompt caching?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 bills cached reads at $0.30 per 1M; Mistral Nemo at $0.015.

Related comparisons

Run your own token volumes