Mistral Nemo vs Grok 4.7

Mistral AI

40#401

xAI

89#42

Signal-by-Signal Comparison

Signal	Mistral Nemo	Delta	Grok 4.7
Capabilities	50	-50	100
Pricing	100	+5	95
Context window size	81	-9	90
Recency	0	-100	100
Output Capacity	67	-23	90
Benchmarks	0	-86	86
Overall Result	1 wins	of 6	5 wins

Grok 4.7 wins 5 of 6 signals

Score History

Score History (32 data points)

Mistral NemoGrok 4.7

Mistral Nemo

current score

Leader

Grok 4.7

right now

Grok 4.7

88.8

current score

LMMarketCap.com

Interactive Price Comparison

Quick presets

Monthly API calls

100Kcalls/month

Avg. input tokens/call

1,000tokens (~1,333 chars)

Avg. output tokens/call

500tokens (~667 chars)

Mistral Nemo

Mistral AI

Best Value

Per request$0.000034

Daily$0.11

Monthly$3.40

Annual$40.80

Grok 4.7

xAI

Per request$0.004000

Daily$13.33

Monthly$400.00

Annual$4800.00

Mistral Nemo saves you $396.60/month

That's $4759.20/year compared to Grok 4.7 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.

99% cheaper

Choose Mistral Nemo for cost optimization

Mistral Nemo pricing:

Input:$0.02/M tokens

Output:$0.03/M tokens

Grok 4.7 pricing:

Input:$1.60/M tokens

Output:$4.80/M tokens

Mistral Nemo

Mistral AI

Composite Score

Winner

Grok 4.7

xAI

Composite Score

Signal-by-Signal Comparison

Metric	Mistral Nemo	Grok 4.7	Winner
Overall Score	40	89	Grok 4.7
Rank	#401	#42	Grok 4.7
Quality Rank	#401	#42	Grok 4.7
Adoption Rank	#401	#42	Grok 4.7
Parameters	--	--	--
Context Window	131K	500K	Grok 4.7
Pricing	$0.02/$0.03/M	$1.60/$4.80/M	--
Signal Scores
Capabilities	50	100	Grok 4.7
Pricing	100	95	Mistral Nemo
Context window size	81	90	Grok 4.7
Recency	0	100	Grok 4.7
Output Capacity	67	90	Grok 4.7
Benchmarks	--	86	Grok 4.7

Benchmark Head-to-Head(11 benchmarks)

Mistral Nemo: 0Grok 4.7: 0

Mistral Nemo

Grok 4.7

Normalized 0-100%

MMLU

-91.5%

MMLU-Pro

-83.5%

GPQA Diamond

-82%

MATH-500

-95%

HumanEval

-95.5%

SWE-bench Verified

-70%

AIME 2024

-88%

IFEval

-91%

BBH

-90%

Arena Elo

-1462

LiveBench

-73%

Benchmark Interpretation

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.

Mistral NemoEntry Level

Scores 40/100 (rank #401), placing it in the top -38% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100

Cost Efficiency0/100

Speed0/100

Grok 4.7Elite Tier

Scores 89/100 (rank #42), placing it in the top 86% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100

Cost Efficiency0/100

Speed0/100

Grok 4.7 has a 49-point advantage, which typically translates to noticeably stronger performance on complex reasoning, code generation, and multi-step tasks.

When to Use Each Model

Choose Mistral Nemo when you need:

High-volume production workloads where API costs must be minimized
Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model

Choose Grok 4.7 when you need:

Processing long documents or large codebases (500K token context)
Multimodal workflows that require image understanding
Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving

Cost-Performance Analysis

Mistral NemoBest Value

Input cost$0.02/M tokens

Output cost$0.03/M tokens

Cost per quality point$0.001

Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$0.73

Grok 4.7

Input cost$1.60/M tokens

Output cost$4.80/M tokens

Cost per quality point$0.072

Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$96.00

Mistral Nemo offers 99% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $0.73/month with Mistral Nemo vs $96.00/month with Grok 4.7 - a $95.27 monthly difference.

Latency & Speed

Mistral NemoFaster

Speed score0/100

Grok 4.7

Speed score0/100

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.

Example Use Cases

Code generation & review

Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring

Mistral Nemo

Customer support chatbot

Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. Mistral Nemo also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support

Mistral Nemo

Long document analysis

Larger context window (500K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass

Grok 4.7

Batch data extraction

Lower output pricing ($0.03/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily

Mistral Nemo

Creative writing & content

Higher overall composite score (89/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content

Grok 4.7

Image understanding & OCR

Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly

Grok 4.7

Which Should You Choose?

Our recommendation:

Grok 4.7

Grok 4.7 clearly outperforms Mistral Nemo with a significant 48.8-point lead. For most general use cases, Grok 4.7 is the stronger choice. However, Mistral Nemo may still excel in niche scenarios.

By Use Case

Best for Quality

Mistral Nemo

Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent

Best for Cost

Mistral Nemo

99% lower pricing; better value at scale

Best for Reliability

Mistral Nemo

Higher uptime and faster response speeds

Best for Prototyping

Mistral Nemo

Stronger community support and better developer experience

Best for Production

Mistral Nemo

Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale

Mistral Nemo

by Mistral AI

Choose for Quality - Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Choose for Cost - 99% lower pricing; better value at scale
Choose for Reliability - Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Choose for Prototyping - Stronger community support and better developer experience
Choose for Production - Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale