Simulating realistic AI coding assistant parameters (12,000 in / 2,000 out with 60% cache reuse). Mistral Medium 3.5 delivers a 50% cost reduction over Claude 3.5 Sonnet.
| Traffic Volume Tier | Claude 3.5 Sonnet Monthly | Mistral Medium 3.5 Monthly | Monthly Savings by picking Mistral Medium 3.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1,000 reqs/mo (Dev/Testing) | $46.56 | $23.28 | Save $23.28 / mo |
| 10,000 reqs/mo (Small App) | $465.60 | $232.80 | Save $232.80 / mo |
| 100,000 reqs/mo (Growth Production) | $4,656.00 | $2,328.00 | Save $2,328.00 / mo |
| 1,000,000 reqs/mo (Scale SaaS) | $46,560.00 | $23,280.00 | Save $23,280.00 / mo |
Mistral Medium 3.5 is 50% cheaper for AI coding assistant workloads. At standard AI coding assistant parameter ratios (12,000 input tokens, 2,000 output tokens, 60% cache hit), Mistral Medium 3.5 costs $0.0233 per request compared to $0.0466 on Claude 3.5 Sonnet.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet offers a context window of 200,000 tokens (max output: 8,192), while Mistral Medium 3.5 offers 256,000 tokens (max output: 32,768).
At 100,000 requests per month, using Mistral Medium 3.5 saves $2,328.00 every month (or $27,936.00 annually) compared to Claude 3.5 Sonnet.
Output is the expensive side — prefer models with cheap output for autocomplete-style calls. Cache repository context between keystrokes; diffs change far less than the full file. Measure acceptance rate: paying for output users delete is pure waste.