Codestral vs Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
Codestral comes out ahead, 48 to 45 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
Mistral AICodestral
48/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $0.90
- Context256K
NVIDIALlama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
45/100- ECI—
- Price$0.478 / $0.504
- Context128K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Codestral is our pick
Codestral is the better all-round choice, scoring 48/100 against Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct (45). It leads on price and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceCodestralCodestral $0.45 · Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct $0.485 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextCodestralCodestral 256,000 · Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct 128,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsCodestral: Text · Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Codestral | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 66 | 65 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 36 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 48/100 | 45/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | CodestralMistral AI | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B InstructNVIDIA |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.30 (best) | $0.478 |
| Output | $0.90 | $0.504 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.03 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.45 (best) | $0.485 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Mistral API | Median of 2 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 256,000 tokens (best) | 128,000 tokens |
| Max output | 4,096 tokens | 8,192 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Open |
| API model ID | codestral-latest | nvidia/llama-3.1-nemotron-70b-instruct |
| API providers | 3 | 3 |
| Released | May 29, 2024 | Apr 15, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Oct 2024 | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Codestral$4.80
- Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct$5.79
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Codestral or Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct?
Codestral is the better all-round choice, scoring 48/100 against Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct (45). It leads on price and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Codestral or Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct?
Codestral is cheaper at $0.30 input / $0.90 output per million tokens (official Mistral API price). Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct costs $0.478 input / $0.504 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers; free on Nvidia). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.45 per million tokens for Codestral versus $0.485 for Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct (1.1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Codestral has not been scored yet and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Codestral and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Codestral has the largest context window at 256,000 tokens, against 128,000 for Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct. Maximum output per response: Codestral up to 4,096, Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Codestral accepts text; Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights, so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct is the newest, released Apr 15, 2025. Codestral came out May 29, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Codestral Oct 2024.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Qwen2.5-VL 7B InstructThree-way comparison
- Codestral vs Qwen2.5-VL 7B InstructAlibaba (Qwen)
- Codestral vs Command RCohere
- Codestral vs Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-InstructMeta
- Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct vs Qwen3-VL 30B-A3BAlibaba (Qwen)
- Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct vs GLM-4.5-AirZ.ai (Zhipu)
- Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct vs Seed 1.6 VisionByteDance Seed
