GPT-4o vs Llama 70B (hosted): cost & margin
GPT-4o (OpenAI) and Llama 70B (hosted) (Meta (hosted)) sit at different price points. At a typical 500k/150k token mix per customer, Llama 70B (hosted) is cheaper ($0.41 vs $2.75 per customer), and Llama 70B (hosted) has the lower output-token price — the part that usually drives an AI SaaS bill.
| GPT-4o | Llama 70B (hosted) | |
|---|---|---|
| Input $/Mtok | $2.5 | $0.6 |
| Output $/Mtok | $10 | $0.7 |
| Cost / customer (typical) | $2.75 | $0.41 |
| Margin at $49/mo | 94.4% | 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 | GPT-4o | Llama 70B (hosted) |
|---|---|---|
| Light | $0.55 | $0.08 |
| Typical | $2.75 | $0.41 |
| Heavy | $11.00 | $1.62 |
| Power user | $45.00 | $6.55 |
Which should you pick?
GPT-4o
Worth it when its quality justifies the higher token cost — price your plans to cover the difference.
Llama 70B (hosted)
Best when cost is the priority: cheaper on both input and output, so it keeps more customers profitable at any plan price.
Verdict: at a typical token mix, Llama 70B (hosted) is the cheaper choice per customer. Heavier or output-heavy workloads can change the picture — check yours below.
FAQ
- Which is cheaper, GPT-4o or Llama 70B (hosted)?
- At a typical 500k / 150k token mix, Llama 70B (hosted) is cheaper — $0.41 vs $2.75 per customer per month, a $2.34 gap that widens as usage grows.
- Does GPT-4o ever make more sense than Llama 70B (hosted)?
- Yes — token price isn't everything. If GPT-4o 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