Verified November 2026

Home › Compare › Llama 3.3 70B vs Mistral Large

Llama 3.3 70B vs Mistral Large

A straight cost comparison of Llama 3.3 70B (Meta (Llama)) and Mistral Large (Mistral AI), per 1,000,000 tokens, verified November 2026.

$0.88Llama 3.3 70B input / 1M
$2Mistral Large input / 1M
69%Blended price gap
Llama 3.3 70BCheaper blended

Rate-by-rate comparison

USD per 1M tokens · November 2026
MetricLlama 3.3 70BMistral LargeWinner
Input / 1M$0.88$2Llama 3.3 70B
Cached input / 1M$0.088$0.20Llama 3.3 70B
Cache write / 1M——Tie
Output / 1M$0.88$6Llama 3.3 70B
Context window128,000128,000Tie
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
Llama 3.3 70B$1.10Cheaper
Mistral Large$3.50+$2.40

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.

WorkloadLlama 3.3 70BMistral LargeWinner
Classification
100K reqs · 500 in / 10 out
$44.88$106Llama 3.3 70B
Data extraction
10K reqs · 2K in / 200 out
$19.36$52Llama 3.3 70B
Support chat
1K reqs · 4K in / 600 out
$4.05$11.60Llama 3.3 70B
Code review
2K reqs · 8K in / 1.5K out
$16.72$50Llama 3.3 70B
Summarisation
1K reqs · 20K in / 1K out
$18.48$46Llama 3.3 70B
Agent loop
5K reqs · 12K in / 2K out
$61.60$180Llama 3.3 70B
Translation
500 reqs · 15K in / 15K out
$13.20$60Llama 3.3 70B
Long-document QA
200 reqs · 120K in / 800 out
$21.26$48.96Llama 3.3 70B
Cached RAG
1K reqs · 50K in (45K cached) / 1K out
$9.28$25.08Llama 3.3 70B
Nightly batch
10K reqs · 10K in / 2K out
$52.80$160Llama 3.3 70B

Llama 3.3 70B wins 10 of 10, Mistral Large wins 0 of 10. The winner is set by the token mix, not by the headline rate.

Where the two bills cross over

Llama 3.3 70B is cheaper on both sides of the mix: $0.88 vs $2 per million input tokens, and $0.88 vs $6 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 / monthLlama 3.3 70BMistral LargeDifference
100$0.405$1.16Llama 3.3 70B cheaper by $0.755
1,000$4.05$11.60Llama 3.3 70B cheaper by $7.55
10,000$40.48$116Llama 3.3 70B cheaper by $75.52
100,000$405$1,160Llama 3.3 70B cheaper by $755

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 promptLlama 3.3 70BMistral LargeWinner
0%$4.05$11.60Llama 3.3 70B
50%$2.47$8Llama 3.3 70B
80%$1.52$5.85Llama 3.3 70B
95%$1.04$4.77Llama 3.3 70B

Both models publish a cached-read rate, so the discount is comparable: Llama 3.3 70B reads cache at $0.088 per million, Mistral Large at $0.20.

Which one should you pick?

Llama 3.3 70B wins on classification, data extraction, support chat, code review, summarisation, agent loop, translation, long-document qa, cached rag, nightly batch, while Mistral Large wins on none of the ten workloads above.

Beyond price, the two differ on input rate ($0.88 vs $2); output rate ($0.88 vs $6); cached-input rate ($0.088 vs $0.20).

Batch mode is available on Llama 3.3 70B and Mistral Large, which halves the nightly job. Both publish cached-input discounts, so a stable system prompt is worth caching on either.

FAQ

Is Llama 3.3 70B cheaper than Mistral Large?

On a blended 1M-input-plus-250K-output workload, Llama 3.3 70B is cheaper by 69% ($1.10 vs $3.50). The gap changes for cache-heavy prompts and for batch jobs, as the workload table shows.

Which handles longer prompts, Llama 3.3 70B or Mistral Large?

Both models share the same 128,000-token context window. Neither model publishes a long-context surcharge.

Do both models support prompt caching?

Llama 3.3 70B bills cached reads at $0.088 per 1M; Mistral Large at $0.20.

Related comparisons

Run your own token volumes