| Signal | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct | Delta | Mistral Medium 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 50 | -17 | |
Benchmarks | 53 | +53 | |
Pricing | 1 | -1 | |
Context window size | 81 | -- | |
Recency | 37 | -37 | |
Output Capacity | 70 | +50 | |
| Overall Result | 2 wins | of 6 | 3 wins |
0
days ranked higher
0
days
30
days ranked higher
NVIDIA
Mistral AI
Mistral Medium 3 saves you $40.00/month
That's $480.00/year compared to Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct | Mistral Medium 3 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 53 | 65 | Mistral Medium 3 |
| Rank | #255 | #184 | Mistral Medium 3 |
| Quality Rank | #255 | #184 | Mistral Medium 3 |
| Adoption Rank | #255 | #184 | Mistral Medium 3 |
| Parameters | 70B | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 131K | 131K | -- |
| Pricing | $1.20/$1.20/M | $0.40/$2.00/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 50 | 67 | Mistral Medium 3 |
| Benchmarks | 53 | -- | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct |
| Pricing | 1 | 2 | Mistral Medium 3 |
| Context window size | 81 | 81 | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct |
| Recency | 37 | 75 | Mistral Medium 3 |
| Output Capacity | 70 | 20 | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct |
Our composite score (0–100) combines six weighted signals: benchmark performance (25%), pricing efficiency (25%), context window size (15%), model recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and capability versatility (10%). Here's what the scores mean for these two models:
Scores 53/100 (rank #255), placing it in the top 12% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 65/100 (rank #184), placing it in the top 37% of all 290 models tracked.
Mistral Medium 3 has a 12-point advantage, which typically translates to noticeably better performance on complex reasoning, code generation, and multi-step tasks.
Both models are priced similarly, so the decision comes down to quality and features rather than cost.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Higher benchmark score (0/100) indicates stronger performance on coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Faster response time (speed score 0/100) is critical for user-facing chat. Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (131K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($1.20/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (65/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
Mistral Medium 3 clearly outperforms Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct with a significant 11.799999999999997-point lead. For most general use cases, Mistral Medium 3 is the stronger choice. However, Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct may still excel in niche scenarios.
Best for Quality
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
0% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by NVIDIA
| Capability | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct | Mistral Medium 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input)differs | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
NVIDIA
Mistral AI
Mistral Medium 3 saves you $0.4800/month
That's 13% cheaper than Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct | Mistral Medium 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 131K | 131K |
| Max Output Tokens | 16,384 | -- |
| Open Source | Yes | No |
| Created | Oct 15, 2024 | May 7, 2025 |
Mistral Medium 3 scores 65/100 (rank #184) compared to Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct's 53/100 (rank #255), giving it a 12-point advantage. Mistral Medium 3 is the stronger overall choice, though Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct may excel in specific areas like cost efficiency.
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct is ranked #255 and Mistral Medium 3 is ranked #184 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (25%), pricing (25%), context window (15%), recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and versatility (10%). Scores update hourly.
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct is cheaper at $1.20/M output tokens vs Mistral Medium 3's $2.00/M output tokens - 1.7x more expensive. Input token pricing: Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct at $1.20/M vs Mistral Medium 3 at $0.40/M.
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct has a larger context window of 131,072 tokens compared to Mistral Medium 3's 131,072 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.