Directory · Model comparison
Codestral vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Side-by-side API economics and benchmarks. Per-1M input and output rates, context window, and verified metrics.
Tale of the tape
Head-to-head specs pulled from each model profile.
| Metric | Codestral | Llama 3.3 70B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Input cost / 1M | $0.30 | $0.10 |
| Output cost / 1M | $0.90 | $0.32 |
| Context window | 128,000 tokens | 128,000 tokens |
| MMLU score | — | 86% |
Cost verdict
Enter monthly input and output volumes to see total cost savings.
Codestral
- Input: 1M × $0.30 = $0.30
- Output: 1M × $0.90 = $0.90
- Total
- $1.20
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
- Input: 1M × $0.10 = $0.10
- Output: 1M × $0.32 = $0.32
- Total
- $0.42
Total cost savings
$0.78
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct saves $0.78 per month vs the other model at this volume.
Model routing savings
Uses this page's verified rates. Codestral is the premium route (higher combined per-1M cost); Llama 3.3 70B Instruct handles routine traffic.
All premium
Codestral
$60.00
100% of input and output on the premium route
Routed stack
80% → Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
20% → Codestral
$28.80
- Routine slice
- $16.80
- Premium slice
- $12.00
Monthly savings
$31.20
52% lower
Rates pulled from this page's model database entries (codestral, llama-3-3-70b-instruct) — same per-1M input/output figures as Tale of the tape. Production routing needs quality gates and monitoring.
Related comparisons
More head-to-head model matchups.