Skip to main content

Codestral vs Llama 4 Scout

Compare Mistral AI and Meta (via Together AI) AI models

Mistral AI
Codestral
vs
Meta (via Together AI)
Llama 4 Scout

Cost Comparison (1000 input + 500 output tokens, 100 requests/day)

Codestral

Per Request:$0.000750
Daily:$0.075
Monthly:$2.25
Yearly:$27.375

Llama 4 Scout

Per Request:$0.000230
Daily:$0.023
Monthly:$0.69
Yearly:$8.395

Cost Differences

$0.000520
Per Request
$0.052
Daily
$1.56
Monthly
$18.98
Yearly

Llama 4 Scout costs less than Codestral

Feature Comparison

FeatureCodestralLlama 4 Scout
ProviderMistral AIMeta (via Together AI)
Input Price$0.30/1M tokens$0.08/1M tokens
Output Price$0.90/1M tokens$0.30/1M tokens
Context Window128,000 tokens10,000,000 tokens
Max Output32,768 tokens32,768 tokens
Categorybalancedefficient
Capabilities
textcode
textvisioncode
Release Date7/30/20254/5/2025

Codestral vs Llama 4 Scout: Which Should You Choose?

Choosing between Codestral and Llama 4 Scout depends on your priorities: cost efficiency, context length, or raw capability. Llama 4 Scout is the more affordable option at $0.08/1M input tokens73% cheaper than Codestral. Meanwhile, Llama 4 Scout offers a significantly larger context window at 10,000,000 tokens vs 128,000 for Codestral.

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 4 Scout is efficient. This means they're optimized for different workloads. Llama 4 Scout 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 $0.30 for Llama 4 Scout. For generation-heavy workloads (content creation, code generation, summarization), output pricing often dominates your bill. Llama 4 Scout has the edge here at $0.30/1M output tokens.

Multimodal capabilities: Llama 4 Scout supports vision (image inputs) while Codestral is text-only. If your application needs image understanding, this narrows your choice.

Best Use Cases

Choose Codestral when:

  • • You're already using Mistral AI's API ecosystem

Choose Llama 4 Scout when:

  • • Budget is a primary concern
  • • You need a larger context window (10,000,000 tokens)
  • • You need more capabilities (vision)
  • • You're already using Meta (via Together AI)'s API ecosystem
  • • You're running high-volume, latency-sensitive workloads

Try Different Scenarios

Use the calculator below to see how costs change with different usage patterns

Codestral (Mistral AI)

Llama 4 Scout (Meta (via Together AI))

Start using Codestral today

Sign Up for Mistral AI

Start using Llama 4 Scout today

Sign Up for Meta (via Together AI)

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, Codestral or Llama 4 Scout?
Llama 4 Scout is cheaper for input tokens at $0.08 per million tokens vs $0.30 for Codestral — that's 73% savings on input costs.
What is the context window difference between Codestral and Llama 4 Scout?
Codestral supports 128,000 tokens while Llama 4 Scout supports 10,000,000 tokens — a difference of 9,872,000 tokens in favor of Llama 4 Scout.
Which model is better for AI Chatbot?
Both models support text. For ai chatbot, Llama 4 Scout is the lower-cost option, while Llama 4 Scout offers a larger context window (10,000,000 vs 128,000 tokens). Choose Llama 4 Scout for budget sensitivity or Llama 4 Scout for longer context tasks.
Which model has better overall pricing for heavy usage?
At 100 requests/day with 1,000 input and 500 output tokens each, Codestral costs about $2.25/month and Llama 4 Scout costs about $0.69/month. Overall, Llama 4 Scout has lower combined input + output rates ($0.08 in, $0.30 out) vs Codestral.

Related Comparisons

Related Articles