ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B vs Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 vs Codestral 25.08

Too close to call on our weighted score (Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 48, Codestral 25.08 47, ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B 43). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. Baidu

    ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B

    Released Jun 30, 2025

    43/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.28 / $1.10
    • Context131K
  2. NVIDIA

    Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5

    Released Jul 25, 2025

    48/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.40 / $0.40
    • Context131K
  3. Mistral AI

    Codestral 25.08

    Released Jul 30, 2025

    47/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.30 / $0.90
    • Context128K
01 — Verdict

Too close to call

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 1 points (Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 48/100, Codestral 25.08 47/100, ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B 43/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 on price. 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 priceLlama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 $0.40 · Codestral 25.08 $0.45 · ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B $0.485 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextERNIE 4.5 300B A47B and Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B 131,072 · Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 131,072 · Codestral 25.08 128,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsSame inputsERNIE 4.5 300B A47B: Text · Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5: Text · Codestral 25.08: Text
  • Self-hostingERNIE 4.5 300B A47B and Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5Publishes downloadable weights (Apache-2.0)
How the score is built
MeasureWeightERNIE 4.5 300B A47BLlama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5Codestral 25.08
Price50%626664
Inputs & features30%253535
Context window20%252524
Overall100%43/10048/10047/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B vs Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 vs Codestral 25.08 specifications side by side
SpecificationERNIE 4.5 300B A47BBaiduLlama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5NVIDIACodestral 25.08Mistral AI
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)———
ECI rank———
Price per million tokens
Input$0.28 (best)$0.40$0.30
Output$1.10$0.40 (best)$0.90
Cached input——$0.03
Blended (3:1)$0.485$0.40 (best)$0.45
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 1 providersMedian of 1 providersOfficial Mistral API
Limits
Context window131,072 tokens (best)131,072 tokens (best)128,000 tokens
Max output12,000 tokens131,072 tokens (best)8,192 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesNoNoNo
PDFsNoNoNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoNoNoNo
ReasoningNoYesNo
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputNoNoYes
Availability
WeightsOpenApache-2.0OpenProprietary
API model ID——codestral-2508
API providers1111 (best)
ReleasedJun 30, 2025Jul 25, 2025Jul 30, 2025
Knowledge cutoff———
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B$5.00
  • Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5$4.80
  • Codestral 25.08$4.80
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B, Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 or Codestral 25.08?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 1 points (Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 48/100, Codestral 25.08 47/100, ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B 43/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 on price. 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, ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B, Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 or Codestral 25.08?

Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 is cheaper at $0.40 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Codestral 25.08 costs $0.30 input / $0.90 output per million tokens (official Mistral API price); ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B costs $0.28 input / $1.10 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.40 per million tokens for Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 versus $0.45 for Codestral 25.08 (1.1× as much) and $0.485 for ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B (1.2× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B has not been scored yet, Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 has not been scored yet and Codestral 25.08 has not been scored yet.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B, Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 and Codestral 25.08 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B and Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 have the largest context windows (131,072 and 131,072 tokens), against 128,000 for Codestral 25.08. Maximum output per response: ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B up to 12,000, Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 up to 131,072, Codestral 25.08 up to 8,192 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B accepts text; Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 accepts text; Codestral 25.08 accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.

Are any of these open source?

ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B and Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 publishes its weights (Apache-2.0) and can be self-hosted; Codestral 25.08 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Codestral 25.08 is the newest, released Jul 30, 2025. Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1.5 came out Jul 25, 2025; ERNIE 4.5 300B A47B came out Jun 30, 2025.

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 Nov 2, 2026.