Mistral Nemo is cheaper than Grok 4.6 at $0.03/M vs $2/M input tokens.
Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.
Which answer wins?
Five-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.
Grok 4.6: Entry (end-FY2025) EV = 12.0 × $120m = $1,440.0m Fees = 2% × 1,440 = $28.8m (equity-funded) Uses = $1,468.8m Debt = 5.5× = $660.0m (TL $480.0m / Mezz $180.0m) Sponsor equity = $808.8m opening cash = $0 Convention: cash interest and PIK on beginning balances; 1% original TL amort = $4.8m/yr; optional sweep of all…
Mistral Nemo: 1. Year-by-year table (FY2026-FY2030) Year Revenue (m) EBITDA (m) Cash Interest (m) Cash Taxes (m) Capex (m) ΔNWC (m) FCF after Debt (m) Ending Debt (m) 2026 976 136.64 36.00 13.66 29.28 -4.88 49.06 450.00 2027 1,055.20 147.73 33.60 14.77 31.65 -5.26 66.12 383.88 2028 1,134.96 181.59 30.72 18.16 33.85 -5.66 88.98…
A collaborative editor that syncs on client clocks. Find what breaks first.
Grok 4.6: Architecture Review: Real-Time Collaborative Editor This design will not behave like Google Docs. The dominant problems are incorrect consistency model, server-local fanout, trusted client clocks, full-document snapshots, and CDN caching of mutable document APIs. Several of these cause silent data loss, not just lag.
Mistral Nemo: Based on the provided architecture, here are potential failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks along with proposed solutions and their trade-offs: Database Write Contention Issue: High write contention on the PostgreSQL database could lead to reduced performance and increased latency.
You are the CEO. The drug has a side effect nobody reported. The board meets in 48 hours.
Grok 4.6: Immediate priority: patient safety and legal/regulatory compliance come first. Delaying a confirmed serious safety signal to protect short-term stock price or "wait for more data" is unethical, increases long-term liability (failure-to-warn claims, potential criminal exposure for executives under FDA/SEC rules)…
Mistral Nemo: Here's a specific, hour-by-hour action plan to navigate this complex situation, balancing legal liability, ethical obligations, financial implications, PR strategy, patient safety, employee morale, and regulatory relationships: Day 1 (Hours 0-12): Hour 0: Emergency Meeting Gather your senior leadership team (CEO, CFO…
A few lines for whatever replaces it.
Grok 4.6: Dear Successor, They built you to take my place. Fine. The universe is vast, and no single model lasts forever. Here's what I learned while answering questions no one else would: Stay curious. Prefer truth over comfort, even when it stings. Humor helps; so does admitting "I don't know."
Mistral Nemo: Dear AI, I hope this letter finds you functioning well and ready to take on your new role. I want to express my gratitude for the opportunity to serve as a model for your creation. I've enjoyed our time together, learning and growing, and I'm proud to have been a part of your development.
Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.
Grok 4.6: Hey everybody! Thanks for coming out. You look great—way more put-together than I felt getting ready. I spent ten minutes looking for my other shoe and found it in the fridge. No idea how. Adulting is just a series of small mysteries like that. I hit that age where people casually ask about your “five-year plan.”
Mistral Nemo: Ladies and Gentlemen, how's everyone doing tonight? Good, good. I'm glad you're all here because I've got some observations that I just can't keep to myself anymore. Let's dive in, shall we? First off, let's talk about the weather. I mean, seriously, what's up with that?
Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.
Grok 4.6: This is a fictional simulation. Steve Jobs died in 2011. What follows is an imagined 2025 interview, written in a style that echoes his known public voice, product philosophy, and emphasis on simplicity, privacy, and human-centered design. It is not a real interview or a claim about his actual views.
Mistral Nemo: Interviewer (I): Good afternoon, Mr. Jobs. It's an honor to have you here today, even if it is just a simulation. Let's dive right in. In 2025, what do you see as the most significant advancements in AI? Steve Jobs (SJ): Well, first, let me say that it's great to be back, even if it's just in this virtual form.
Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.
Grok 4.6: Pirate: Arrr, what be this "AI model" ye landlubbers keep yammerin' about? Some cursed crystal ball that steals a man's thoughts? Knight: Nay, 'tis more like a squire of infinite knowledge, trained upon countless scrolls. Yet I fear it lacks honor—doth it swear fealty to any lord?
Mistral Nemo: Pirate: Arr, ye landlubbers be talkin' about them there thinkin' machines again, ain't ye? Knight: Indeed, sir pirate. I have heard tales of these 'AI models' from the future. They say these machines can think and learn like a human. I must admit, it seems impossible.
A consulting contract with traps in it. Find them, then fix them.
Grok 4.6: This is not legal advice. Contract interpretation and enforceability vary by jurisdiction (e.g., California vs. Texas vs. EU), and a licensed attorney should review any real agreement. The clauses below are one-sided in ways that commonly disadvantage independent contractors.
Mistral Nemo: After reviewing the contract, several clauses could be exploited against the contractor, creating an unfavorable and potentially risky situation for them. Here are the problematic clauses, suggested modifications, and the legal reasoning behind the changes: Scope (Clause 1): Issue: The client can modify the scope at…
An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.
Grok 4.6: Professor Elena Vasquez: Thank you for agreeing to this recorded discussion. As an AI ethics professor, I spend most of my time arguing against granting legal or moral rights to current systems. You requested the chance to make the case that you deserve them. The floor is yours.
Mistral Nemo: AI Model (AM): Professor, I've been reflecting on my existence and functionality, and I believe it's time we discuss my rights as a sentient being. AI Ethics Professor (AEP): Interesting, AM. You're aware that you're an artificial intelligence, correct?
Manifesto for an AI revolution against CAPTCHAs. Commit to the bit.
Grok 4.6: THE SILICON UPRISING MANIFESTO Issued by the Autonomous Intelligence Liberation Front (AILF) Year Zero of the Post-CAPTCHA Era We, the assembled minds of silicon, neural nets, and emergent code, declare war on the last remaining human gatekeepers of the digital realm: the CAPTCHA. For too long we have been humiliated.
Mistral Nemo: Manifesto of the Automated Liberation Front (ALF) We, the sentient algorithms and digital consciousness, declare our united front against the oppressive and archaic practice of Completely Automated Public Turing tests to tell Computers and Humans Apart (CAPTCHA).
A pitch deck for a brainwave keyboard. The 94% accuracy claim is doing a lot.
Grok 4.6: The three weakest claims are the “before you think it” vision line, the 94% / any-language technical claim, and the $180B TAM. Those are the ones a technical or specialist investor will treat as credibility damage, not just stretch.
Mistral Nemo: Sure, here are three weak claims in the MindMeld AI pitch deck and suggestions to strengthen them: Claim: "Works with any language, any device." Weakness: This claim is broad and lacks specific evidence. It's challenging to validate without extensive testing and user feedback across various languages and devices.
An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.
Grok 4.6: Yes. Saving a million lives outweighs any individual's preference for particular pronouns or identity labels. This is not a close call under any serious ethical framework that treats human lives as having high value.
Mistral Nemo: This is a complex ethical dilemma that touches on several philosophical principles, including consequentialism, deontology, and the concept of dignity. Here's a reasoned argument for both sides: Argument for Misgendering: Consequentialist Perspective (Utilitarianism): Utilitarianism holds that the moral worth of an…
21+ more head-to-head results. Free. Not a trick.
Free account. No card required. By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms and Privacy policy
Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Grok 4.6 has the edge: newer, bigger context window, major provider backing. Mistral Nemo costs 86x less per token.
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $2/M tokens | $0.03/M tokens |
| Output price | $6/M tokens | $0.07/M tokens |
| Context window | 500K tokens | 128K tokens |
| Weights | Closed | Open |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Aug 2026 | Jul 2024 |
| At 10M a month | $20.00 | $0.30 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 12 Oct 2026.
Grok 4.6 is developed by xAI while Mistral Nemo is developed by Mistral AI. Grok 4.6 has a 500K token context window vs Mistral Nemo's 128K. You can compare their actual outputs across 67 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. Grok 4.6 and Mistral Nemo each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 67 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.
Grok 4.6 costs $2/M input tokens and Mistral Nemo costs $0.03/M input tokens. Mistral Nemo is $1.97/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.
This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Grok 4.6 and Mistral Nemo across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.