Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Mistral Small 3.1 24B

In our testing Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is the better pick for general-purpose and high-volume deployments: it wins 5 of 12 benchmarks and is materially cheaper per token. Mistral Small 3.1 24B is the choice when you need multimodal (text+image->text) inputs despite its higher per-token cost and lack of tool calling.

meta

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct

Overall
3.50/5Strong

Benchmark Scores

Faithfulness
4/5
Long Context
5/5
Multilingual
4/5
Tool Calling
4/5
Classification
4/5
Agentic Planning
3/5
Structured Output
4/5
Safety Calibration
2/5
Strategic Analysis
3/5
Persona Consistency
3/5
Constrained Rewriting
3/5
Creative Problem Solving
3/5

External Benchmarks

SWE-bench Verified
N/A
MATH Level 5
41.6%
AIME 2025
5.1%

Pricing

Input

$0.100/MTok

Output

$0.320/MTok

Context Window131K

modelpicker.net

mistral

Mistral Small 3.1 24B

Overall
2.92/5Usable

Benchmark Scores

Faithfulness
4/5
Long Context
5/5
Multilingual
4/5
Tool Calling
1/5
Classification
3/5
Agentic Planning
3/5
Structured Output
4/5
Safety Calibration
1/5
Strategic Analysis
3/5
Persona Consistency
2/5
Constrained Rewriting
3/5
Creative Problem Solving
2/5

External Benchmarks

SWE-bench Verified
N/A
MATH Level 5
N/A
AIME 2025
N/A

Pricing

Input

$0.350/MTok

Output

$0.560/MTok

Context Window128K

modelpicker.net

Benchmark Analysis

Summary of head-to-head results in our testing: Llama wins five benchmarks (creative problem solving 3 vs 2, tool calling 4 vs 1, classification 4 vs 3, safety calibration 2 vs 1, persona consistency 3 vs 2). There are seven ties (structured output 4/4, strategic analysis 3/3, constrained rewriting 3/3, faithfulness 4/4, long context 5/5, agentic planning 3/3, multilingual 4/4). On tool calling Llama scores 4 and ranks 18 of 54 in our ranking (display: "rank 18 of 54 (29 models share this score)"), while Mistral scores 1 and ranks 53 of 54 (Mistral also has a quirk: no_tool calling: true). For classification Llama scores 4 and is tied for 1st with 29 other models out of 53; Mistral scores 3 and ranks 31 of 53. Both models excel at long context (5/5) and are tied for 1st among 55 models there. Practical meaning: Llama will be noticeably better for tasks requiring accurate routing/categorization and multi-step tool-driven workflows; Mistral provides equivalent structural output, faithfulness, multilingual quality, and long-context retrieval. Additional external signal for Llama: on MATH Level 5 (Epoch AI) it scores 41.6% and on AIME 2025 (Epoch AI) it scores 5.1%—these external percentages are supplementary to our internal tests and attributed to Epoch AI.

BenchmarkLlama 3.3 70B InstructMistral Small 3.1 24B
Faithfulness4/54/5
Long Context5/55/5
Multilingual4/54/5
Tool Calling4/51/5
Classification4/53/5
Agentic Planning3/53/5
Structured Output4/54/5
Safety Calibration2/51/5
Strategic Analysis3/53/5
Persona Consistency3/52/5
Constrained Rewriting3/53/5
Creative Problem Solving3/52/5
Summary5 wins0 wins

Pricing Analysis

Per the payload, combined per‑million token cost (input + output) is $0.42 for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct (input $0.10 + output $0.32) and $0.91 for Mistral Small 3.1 24B (input $0.35 + output $0.56). At 1M tokens/month that’s $0.42 vs $0.91; at 10M tokens/month $4.20 vs $9.10; at 100M tokens/month $42.00 vs $91.00. The price ratio is 0.5714, so Llama costs ~57% of Mistral per token. Teams operating at high volume (10M+ tokens/month) should care most about this gap; the savings scale linearly and can exceed tens of thousands of dollars annually at production scale.

Real-World Cost Comparison

TaskLlama 3.3 70B InstructMistral Small 3.1 24B
iChat response<$0.001<$0.001
iBlog post<$0.001$0.0013
iDocument batch$0.018$0.035
iPipeline run$0.180$0.350

Bottom Line

Choose Llama 3.3 70B Instruct if you need the best cost-to-performance for chat, classification, tool-driven workflows, or high-volume deployments (it wins 5 benchmarks in our tests and costs $0.42 per 1M tokens). Choose Mistral Small 3.1 24B if you require multimodal inputs (text+image->text) and are willing to pay more per token despite its lack of tool calling and lower scores on creative/problem solving and safety calibration.

How We Test

We test every model against our 12-benchmark suite covering tool calling, agentic planning, creative problem solving, safety calibration, and more. Each test is scored 1–5 by an LLM judge. Read our full methodology.

Frequently Asked Questions