Codestral vs Llama 3.1 405B
Codestral vs Llama 3.1 405B: Codestral is cheaper for input-heavy usage ($0.30/M vs $3.50/M input tokens), while Codestral is better for long-context tasks (128,000 tokens).
Direct answer: choose Codestral for lower token spend and choose Codestral when your workload needs longer context.
Compare input and output token pricing, context windows, and monthly cost estimates on one page so you can pick the cheaper model fast.
Cost Comparison (1000 input + 500 output tokens, 100 requests/day)
Codestral
Llama 3.1 405B
Cost Differences
Llama 3.1 405B costs more than Codestral
Quick Recommendation
Winner for direct API pricing: Codestral. At the default workload, Codestral saves about $13.50/month ($164.25/year) versus Llama 3.1 405B.
Feature Comparison
| Feature | Codestral | Llama 3.1 405B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Mistral AI | Meta (via Together AI) |
| Input Price | $0.30/1M tokens | $3.50/1M tokens |
| Output Price | $0.90/1M tokens | $3.50/1M tokens |
| Context Window | 128,000 tokens | 128,000 tokens |
| Max Output | 32,768 tokens | 32,768 tokens |
| Category | balanced | flagship |
| Capabilities | textcode | textcodereasoning |
| Release Date | 7/30/2025 | 7/23/2024 |
Codestral vs Llama 3.1 405B: Which Should You Choose?
Choosing between Codestral and Llama 3.1 405B depends on your priorities: cost efficiency, context length, or raw capability. Codestral is the more affordable option at $0.30/1M input tokens — 91% cheaper than Llama 3.1 405B.
These models come from different providers — Mistral AI and Meta (via Together AI) — which means different API ecosystems, SDKs, rate limits, and terms of service. If you're already integrated with Mistral AI, switching to Meta (via Together AI)involves migration effort beyond just pricing. Factor in your existing infrastructure when deciding.
These models target different tiers: Codestral is a balanced model while Llama 3.1 405B is flagship. This means they're optimized for different workloads. Llama 3.1 405B targets more demanding workloads, while Codestral provides a cost-effective option for everyday tasks.
Output costs matter too. Codestral charges $0.90/1M output tokens vs $3.50 for Llama 3.1 405B. For generation-heavy workloads (content creation, code generation, summarization), output pricing often dominates your bill. Codestral has the edge here at $0.90/1M output tokens.
Best Use Cases
Choose Codestral when:
- • Budget is a primary concern
- • You're already using Mistral AI's API ecosystem
Choose Llama 3.1 405B when:
- • You need more capabilities (reasoning)
- • You're already using Meta (via Together AI)'s API ecosystem
Pros and Caveats at a Glance
Codestral
- • Input pricing: $0.30/M tokens
- • Output pricing: $0.90/M tokens
- • Context window: 128,000 tokens
- • Max output: 32,768 tokens
Watch out for
- • Trade-offs are minor in this matchup.
Llama 3.1 405B
- • Input pricing: $3.50/M tokens
- • Output pricing: $3.50/M tokens
- • Context window: 128,000 tokens
- • Max output: 32,768 tokens
Watch out for
- • Higher input cost than Codestral
- • Higher output cost than Codestral
Try Different Scenarios
Use the calculator below to see how costs change with different usage patterns
Codestral (Mistral AI)
Llama 3.1 405B (Meta (via Together AI))
Start using Codestral today
Sign Up for Mistral AI →Start using Llama 3.1 405B today
Sign Up for Meta (via Together AI) →Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, Codestral or Llama 3.1 405B?▼
What is the context window difference between Codestral and Llama 3.1 405B?▼
Which model is better for AI Chatbot?▼
Which model has better overall pricing for heavy usage?▼
Where can I compare Mistral AI and Meta (via Together AI) API pricing beyond this model matchup?▼
Related Comparisons
Related Articles
Learn when to pick each model, then compare live pricing scenarios.