| Signal | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct | Delta | Devstral Medium |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 50 | -- | |
Benchmarks | 47 | +4 | |
Pricing | 99 | +1 | |
Context window size | 81 | -- | |
Recency | 35 | -49 | |
Output Capacity | 70 | +50 | |
| Overall Result | 3 wins | of 6 | 1 wins |
Score History
44.6
current score
Devstral Medium
right now
45.3
current score
NVIDIA
Mistral AI
Devstral Medium 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 | Devstral Medium | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 45 | 45 | Devstral Medium |
| Rank | #160 | #159 | Devstral Medium |
| Quality Rank | #160 | #159 | Devstral Medium |
| Adoption Rank | #160 | #159 | Devstral Medium |
| Parameters | 70B | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 131K | 131K | -- |
| Pricing | $1.20/$1.20/M | $0.40/$2.00/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 50 | 50 | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct |
| Benchmarks | 47 | 43 | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct |
| Pricing | 99 | 98 | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct |
| Context window size | 81 | 81 | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct |
| Recency | 35 | 84 | Devstral Medium |
| Output Capacity | 70 | 20 | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct |
Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.
Scores 45/100 (rank #160), placing it in the top 45% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 45/100 (rank #159), placing it in the top 46% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 1-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
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 (45/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct and Devstral Medium are extremely close in overall performance (only 0.6999999999999957 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
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 | Devstral Medium |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
NVIDIA
Mistral AI
Devstral Medium 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 | Devstral Medium |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 131K | 131K |
| Max Output Tokens | 16,384 | -- |
| Open Source | Yes | No |
| Created | Oct 15, 2024 | Jul 10, 2025 |
Devstral Medium scores 45/100 (rank #159) compared to Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct's 45/100 (rank #160), giving it a 1-point advantage. Devstral Medium 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 #160 and Devstral Medium is ranked #159 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (90%) from MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations, with capabilities and context window as tiebreakers (10%). Scores update hourly.
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct is cheaper at $1.20/M output tokens vs Devstral Medium's $2.00/M output tokens - 1.7x more expensive. Input token pricing: Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct at $1.20/M vs Devstral Medium at $0.40/M.
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct has a larger context window of 131,072 tokens compared to Devstral Medium's 131,072 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.