Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 vs Mistral Medium 3 Instruct
Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 (2025) and Mistral Medium 3 Instruct (2025) are compact production models from NVIDIA AI and MistralAI. Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 ships a 128k-token context window, while Mistral Medium 3 Instruct ships a 128k-token context window. This comparison covers specs, pricing, API access, capabilities, benchmarks, input and output token costs, and production fit for coding and agent workloads.
Mistral Medium 3 Instruct is safer overall; choose Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 when provider fit matters.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 | Mistral Medium 3 Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Best for | general production evaluation | provider-routed production |
| Decision fit | Long context | Long context |
| Context window | 128k | 128k |
| Cheapest output | - | $2/1M tokens |
| Provider routes | 1 tracked | 2 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 0 rows | 0 rows |
Decision tradeoffs
- Local decision data tags Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 for Long context.
- Mistral Medium 3 Instruct has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- Local decision data tags Mistral Medium 3 Instruct for Long context.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.
Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
Mistral Medium 3 Instruct
$820
Cheapest tracked route/tier: Mistral AI Studio
Cost delta unavailable until both models have sourced input and output token prices.
Switch friction
- Provider overlap exists on NVIDIA NIM; start route-level A/B tests there.
- Provider overlap exists on NVIDIA NIM; start route-level A/B tests there.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2025-06-01 | 2025-10-01 |
| Context window | 128k | 128k |
| Parameters | 49B | — |
| Architecture | decoder only | decoder only |
| License | 1 | 1 |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | 2025-03 |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 | Mistral Medium 3 Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | - | $0.40/1M tokens |
| Output price | - | $2/1M tokens |
| Providers |
Capabilities
| Capability | Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 | Mistral Medium 3 Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | No | No |
| Multimodal | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Function calling | No | No |
| Tool use | No | No |
| Structured outputs | No | No |
| Code execution | No | No |
| IDE integration | No | No |
| Computer use | No | No |
| Parallel agents | No | No |
Benchmarks
No shared benchmark rows are currently sourced for this pair.
Deep dive
The capability footprint is close: both models cover the core production surface. That makes context budget, benchmark fit, and provider maturity more important than a simple checklist. If your application depends on one integration detail, verify it against the provider route you plan to use, not just the base model listing.
Pricing coverage is uneven: Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 has no token price sourced yet and Mistral Medium 3 Instruct has $0.40/1M input tokens. Provider availability is 1 tracked routes versus 2. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.
Choose Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 when provider fit are central to the workload. Choose Mistral Medium 3 Instruct when provider fit and broader provider choice are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship. This keeps the decision grounded in measurable tradeoffs instead of brand-level assumptions. It also helps separate model capability from provider packaging, which can change cost and latency. For teams standardizing a stack, that distinction is often the difference between a benchmark win and a reliable deployment.
FAQ
Which has a larger context window, Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 or Mistral Medium 3 Instruct?
Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 supports 128k tokens, while Mistral Medium 3 Instruct supports 128k tokens. That gap matters most for long documents, large codebases, retrieval-heavy agents, and conversations where earlier context must remain visible.
Is Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 or Mistral Medium 3 Instruct open source?
Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 is listed under 1. Mistral Medium 3 Instruct is listed under 1. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.
Where can I run Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 and Mistral Medium 3 Instruct?
Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 is available on NVIDIA NIM. Mistral Medium 3 Instruct is available on NVIDIA NIM and Mistral AI Studio. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
When should I pick Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 over Mistral Medium 3 Instruct?
Mistral Medium 3 Instruct is safer overall; choose Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1 when provider fit matters. If your workload also depends on provider fit, start with Llama 3.3 Nemotron Super 49B v1; if it depends on provider fit, run the same evaluation with Mistral Medium 3 Instruct.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-05-19. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.