Claude Sonnet 4.6 Anthropic 1000000
💰 Total Cost Calculation (from Plugin)
Output: $0.003750
Output: $0.003750
Unit: $0.000000
Fees: $0.000000
Advanced Cost Breakdown (from Plugin)
Detailed Cost Analysis (from Plugin)
For 50,000 input tokens and 1,000 output tokens:
- Input Cost: $0.037500 (rounded ~ $0.04)
- Output Cost: $0.003750
- Total Cost: $0.024375 (rounded ~ $0.02)
- Cost per 1K tokens: $0.000478
- Tokens per dollar: 2,092,308 tokens
- Context Window: 1000000 tokens
Speed & Performance Analysis
With a processing speed of 450 tokens per second and 200ms time to first token:
- Processing Time: 1 minute, 56.91 seconds
- Latency: 200 milliseconds to first token
- Base Throughput: 450 tokens/second
- Effective Throughput: 437 tokens/second (temperature-adjusted)
Best Use Cases
Want this applied to YOUR actual stack?
This calculator shows the math for Claude Sonnet 4.6. Your decision needs more — current infrastructure, compliance requirements, actual workload patterns, volume tiers — that change which model is right for you.
Get a $39 personalized AI Architecture Audit. PDF tailored to your stack, delivered in under 60 seconds. 7-day no-questions-asked refund.
Get my instant AI audit — $39 →Devstral 2 Mistral AI
💰 Total Cost Calculation (from Plugin)
Output: $0.000225
Output: $0.000225
Unit: $0.000000
Fees: $0.000000
Advanced Cost Breakdown (from Plugin)
Detailed Cost Analysis (from Plugin)
For 50,000 input tokens and 1,000 output tokens:
- Input Cost: $0.005000 (rounded ~ $0.01)
- Output Cost: $0.000225
- Total Cost: $0.002975
- Cost per 1K tokens: $0.000058
- Tokens per dollar: 17,142,857 tokens
- Context Window: 256000 tokens
Speed & Performance Analysis
With a processing speed of 450 tokens per second and 180ms time to first token:
- Processing Time: 1 minute, 56.91 seconds
- Latency: 180 milliseconds to first token
- Base Throughput: 450 tokens/second
- Effective Throughput: 437 tokens/second (temperature-adjusted)
Best Use Cases
Want this applied to YOUR actual stack?
This calculator shows the math for Devstral 2. Your decision needs more — current infrastructure, compliance requirements, actual workload patterns, volume tiers — that change which model is right for you.
Get a $39 personalized AI Architecture Audit. PDF tailored to your stack, delivered in under 60 seconds. 7-day no-questions-asked refund.
Get my instant AI audit — $39 →✨ Market Recommendations AI Model Registry
← Back to Claude Sonnet 4.6| Rank | AI Model & Provider | Total Cost | vs Claude Sonnet 4.6 | vs Devstral 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🏆 |
Mistral Small 3
Mistral AI
|
$0.000763 Best Value | ↓ 96.9% cheaper | ↓ 74.4% cheaper |
| 🥈 |
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Google
|
$0.002094 | ↓ 91.4% cheaper | ↓ 29.6% cheaper |
| 🥉 |
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Google
|
$0.002688 | ↓ 89% cheaper | ↓ 9.7% cheaper |
| #4 |
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Google
|
$0.002688 | ↓ 89% cheaper | ↓ 9.7% cheaper |
| #5 |
Mistral Large 3
Mistral AI
|
$0.003813 | ↓ 84.4% cheaper | ↑ 28.2% more |
| #6 |
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Google
|
$0.006094 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↓ 75% cheaper | ↑ 104.8% more |
| #7 |
GPT-5.4 mini
OpenAI
|
$0.006281 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↓ 74.2% cheaper | ↑ 111.1% more |
| #8 |
o4-mini Deep Research
OpenAI
|
$0.007875 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↓ 67.7% cheaper | ↑ 164.7% more |
| #9 |
Claude Haiku 4.5
Anthropic
|
$0.008125 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↓ 66.7% cheaper | ↑ 173.1% more |
| #10 |
Gemini 3.1 Flash
Google
|
$0.008375 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↓ 65.6% cheaper | ↑ 181.5% more |
| #11 |
GPT-5.6 Luna
OpenAI
|
$0.008375 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↓ 65.6% cheaper | ↑ 181.5% more |
| #12 |
o4-mini
OpenAI
|
$0.008663 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↓ 64.5% cheaper | ↑ 191.2% more |
| #13 |
Gemini 3.6 Flash
Google
|
$0.012188 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↓ 50% cheaper | ↑ 309.7% more |
| #14 |
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Google
|
$0.012563 (rounded ~ $0.01) | ↓ 48.5% cheaper | ↑ 322.3% more |
| #15 |
GPT-5.3 Codex Spark
OpenAI
|
$0.015531 (rounded ~ $0.02) | ↓ 36.3% cheaper | ↑ 422.1% more |
| #16 |
GPT-5.3 Instant
OpenAI
|
$0.015531 (rounded ~ $0.02) | ↓ 36.3% cheaper | ↑ 422.1% more |
| #17 |
Claude Sonnet 5
Anthropic
|
$0.016250 (rounded ~ $0.02) | ↓ 33.3% cheaper | ↑ 446.2% more |
| #18 |
GPT-5.6 Terra
OpenAI
|
$0.020938 | ↓ 14.1% cheaper | ↑ 603.8% more |
| #19 |
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Google
|
$0.022188 (rounded ~ $0.02) | ↓ 9% cheaper | ↑ 645.8% more |
| #20 |
Grok 4.3
xAI
|
$0.029500 | ↑ 21% more | ↑ 891.6% more |
| #21 |
Grok 4.20 Beta
xAI
|
$0.029500 | ↑ 21% more | ↑ 891.6% more |
| #22 |
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Google
|
$0.033500 (rounded ~ $0.03) | ↑ 37.4% more | ↑ 1026.1% more |
| #23 |
Claude Opus 4.7
Anthropic
|
$0.040625 | ↑ 66.7% more | ↑ 1265.5% more |
| #24 |
Claude Opus 5
Anthropic
|
$0.040625 | ↑ 66.7% more | ↑ 1265.5% more |
| #25 |
Claude Opus 4.8
Anthropic
|
$0.040625 | ↑ 66.7% more | ↑ 1265.5% more |
| #26 |
Claude Opus 4.6
Anthropic
|
$0.040625 | ↑ 66.7% more | ↑ 1265.5% more |
| #27 |
GPT-5.4
OpenAI
|
$0.041875 (rounded ~ $0.04) | ↑ 71.8% more | ↑ 1307.6% more |
| #28 |
GPT-5.4 Thinking
OpenAI
|
$0.041875 (rounded ~ $0.04) | ↑ 71.8% more | ↑ 1307.6% more |
| #29 |
GPT-5.5 Instant
OpenAI
|
$0.041875 (rounded ~ $0.04) | ↑ 71.8% more | ↑ 1307.6% more |
| #30 |
GPT-5.6 Sol
OpenAI
|
$0.041875 (rounded ~ $0.04) | ↑ 71.8% more | ↑ 1307.6% more |
| #31 |
Claude Fable 5.1
Anthropic
|
$0.076563 (rounded ~ $0.08) | ↑ 214.1% more | ↑ 2473.5% more |
| #32 |
Claude Mythos 5.1
Anthropic
|
$0.076563 (rounded ~ $0.08) | ↑ 214.1% more | ↑ 2473.5% more |
| #33 |
o3 Deep Research
OpenAI
|
$0.078750 (rounded ~ $0.08) | ↑ 223.1% more | ↑ 2547.1% more |
| #34 |
Claude Fable 5
Anthropic
|
$0.081250 (rounded ~ $0.08) | ↑ 233.3% more | ↑ 2631.1% more |
| #35 |
Claude Mythos 5
Anthropic
|
$0.081250 (rounded ~ $0.08) | ↑ 233.3% more | ↑ 2631.1% more |
| #36 |
GPT-5.5
OpenAI
|
$0.083750 (rounded ~ $0.08) | ↑ 243.6% more | ↑ 2715.1% more |
| #37 |
o3 Pro
OpenAI
|
$0.157500 (rounded ~ $0.16) | ↑ 546.2% more | ↑ 5194.1% more |
| #38 |
GPT-6 Astra
OpenAI
|
$0.162500 (rounded ~ $0.16) | ↑ 566.7% more | ↑ 5362.2% more |
| #39 |
GPT-5.2 Pro
OpenAI
|
$0.186375 (rounded ~ $0.19) | ↑ 664.6% more | ↑ 6164.7% more |
| #40 |
GPT-5.2 Pro
OpenAI
|
$0.186375 (rounded ~ $0.19) | ↑ 664.6% more | ↑ 6164.7% more |
Mistral Small 3 Mistral AI
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Google
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite Google
Gemini 2.5 Flash Google
Mistral Large 3 Mistral AI
Gemini 3.8 Flash Google
GPT-5.4 mini OpenAI
o4-mini Deep Research OpenAI
Claude Haiku 4.5 Anthropic
Gemini 3.1 Flash Google
GPT-5.6 Luna OpenAI
o4-mini OpenAI
Gemini 3.6 Flash Google
Gemini 3.5 Flash Google
GPT-5.3 Codex Spark OpenAI
GPT-5.3 Instant OpenAI
Claude Sonnet 5 Anthropic
GPT-5.6 Terra OpenAI
Gemini 2.5 Pro Google
Grok 4.3 xAI
Grok 4.20 Beta xAI
Gemini 3.1 Pro Google
Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic
Claude Opus 5 Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic
GPT-5.4 OpenAI
GPT-5.4 Thinking OpenAI
GPT-5.5 Instant OpenAI
GPT-5.6 Sol OpenAI
Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic
Claude Mythos 5.1 Anthropic
o3 Deep Research OpenAI
Claude Fable 5 Anthropic
Claude Mythos 5 Anthropic
GPT-5.5 OpenAI
o3 Pro OpenAI
GPT-6 Astra OpenAI
GPT-5.2 Pro OpenAI
GPT-5.2 Pro OpenAI
For engineering teams processing high volumes of code changes, the choice between Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Devstral 2 hinges on balancing deep analytical capability against specialized developer workflow integration. Claude Sonnet 4.6 has established itself as a versatile, highly instruction-compliant model, making it a reliable choice for complex code reviews where understanding multi-file interactions and subtle logic bugs is paramount. It excels at maintaining context over long-running review sessions, which is critical when analyzing 50K-token pull requests that span multiple modules.
Conversely, Devstral 2 is engineered with a focus on developer-centric tasks, often providing more concise, actionable feedback that mimics the behavior of a senior human reviewer. For teams looking to optimize their review loop velocity, Devstral 2 frequently offers a more focused approach, stripping away conversational verbosity to highlight security risks and stylistic inconsistencies. While Claude Sonnet 4.6 serves well as an all-purpose reasoning engine, Devstral 2 is increasingly favored in automated CI/CD pipelines where speed and adherence to specific linting or architectural standards are the primary KPIs. When deciding between them, consider whether your team needs a generalist ‘reasoning partner’ for ambiguous architectural shifts or a high-velocity ‘automated reviewer’ for standard feature implementation.