DeepSeek vs Llama 70B (hosted): cost & margin
DeepSeek (DeepSeek) and Llama 70B (hosted) (Meta (hosted)) sit at different price points. At a typical 500k/150k token mix per customer, DeepSeek is cheaper ($0.33 vs $0.41 per customer), and Llama 70B (hosted) has the lower output-token price — the part that usually drives an AI SaaS bill.
| DeepSeek | Llama 70B (hosted) | |
|---|---|---|
| Input $/Mtok | $0.3 | $0.6 |
| Output $/Mtok | $1.2 | $0.7 |
| Cost / customer (typical) | $0.33 | $0.41 |
| Margin at $49/mo | 99.3% | 99.2% |
Cost per customer as usage grows
Monthly LLM cost per customer at four usage levels — the gap widens the more your customers use.
| Usage / mo | DeepSeek | Llama 70B (hosted) |
|---|---|---|
| Light | $0.07 | $0.08 |
| Typical | $0.33 | $0.41 |
| Heavy | $1.32 | $1.62 |
| Power user | $5.40 | $6.55 |
Which should you pick?
DeepSeek
Best for context-heavy, retrieval-style features (RAG, document analysis): cheaper input lets you feed large prompts on a flat price.
Llama 70B (hosted)
Best for output-heavy products — chat, code, long generations — where its lower output price is where the savings land.
Verdict: at a typical token mix, DeepSeek is the cheaper choice per customer. Heavier or output-heavy workloads can change the picture — check yours below.
FAQ
- Which is cheaper, DeepSeek or Llama 70B (hosted)?
- At a typical 500k / 150k token mix, DeepSeek is cheaper — $0.33 vs $0.41 per customer per month, a $0.08 gap that widens as usage grows.
- Does Llama 70B (hosted) ever make more sense than DeepSeek?
- Yes — token price isn't everything. If Llama 70B (hosted) needs fewer retries or shorter outputs to finish the job, or its quality lifts conversion, it can be the better margin call despite the higher per-token price. Model it on your own usage.
Per-model details
Other comparisons