Mistral AI API token pricing (serverless, per million tokens, 2026-10-04 list price)

USD per MILLION TOKENS, LIST PRICE, observed 2026-10-04. The page's own worked example: 'Mistral Large costs $0.5 /M tokens in and $1.5 /M tokens out' - price_usd = Mistral Large input. Structural rules stated on the page: most models are priced per million tokens with input and output counted SEPARATELY; Batch processing reduces the price by 50%; cached input tokens reduce input cost by up to 90%. Some APIs are priced differently - OCR per 1,000 pages, speech models per minute, tool APIs per call. Seat plans carry API credits ($10/mo, $14.99, $24.99, $30, $50 tiers) PERISHABLE-FIGURE STAMP (added 2026-10-04, uniform across data/supply/ so it is greppable). PRICE CLASS: PUBLISHED LIST PRICE - an asking rate a new customer is quoted, NOT a realised, discounted or negotiated transaction rate. A real bill is at or below this and typically well below it once commitments, credits and committed-use discounts apply. OBSERVED: 2026-10-04 RE-VERIFY BY: 2027-01-04 - the repo's quarterly re-verification bar. After that date this figure is presumed drifted and must be re-checked against its source before it is quoted again. A price without its observation date is noise; this stamp exists so a reader can tell a fresh figure from a stale one without reading prose. UNIT: USD per MILLION TOKENS, LIST PRICE, observed 2026-10-04 READING RULE: No further perishable flag is published for this figure.

lead_time_weeks is null because NO NUMBER APPLIES, and the reason is specific rather than generic: this record prices a metered service term (tokens, egress, storage) rather than hardware capacity, so there is no order-to-delivery interval to report at all. Calling this 'no published lead time' would be wrong in the other direction - nothing was withheld.

no EAR citation: no controlled item is transferred by this transaction; not an EAR citation: provider service terms and end-use policy (the AI Diffusion Rule briefly tiered service access before its 2025-05-13 rescission)

MECHANISM: a token-priced API, so no accelerator crosses a border and the 3A090 hardware licence regime does not attach to the transaction. Export control becomes an END-USER AND TERMS question instead: the provider applies geographic and end-use restrictions to service access, and a customer can still be refused under sanctions or end-use policy wherever the compute sits. A reader targeting a restricted destination should read the provider's terms, not the EAR.

LOW-CONFIDENCE RECORD BY CONSTRUCTION, AND THE REASON IS IN THE BASIS FIELD: Mistral's public page states the SHAPE of its pricing (per million tokens, separate input/output, batch at 50% off, cached input up to 90% off) and gives exactly ONE numeric example (Mistral Large $0.50 in / $1.50 out), but does not publish a per-model rate card in the extracted text. So only the Mistral Large figure here is a transcribed number; everything else is the vendor's stated pricing RULE, not a price. Mistral is also the only provider in this set whose headline token rates are bundled into subscription seats with included API credits, which means the effective per-token cost depends on whether you exhaust the credits - a structural difference from pure pay-as-you-go that a reader comparing $/Mtok across this set must account for. Verified students get Mistral Pro at $5.99/month. No GPU hourly rate published. EXPORT CONTROL (2026-10-04): NOT APPLICABLE IN THE HARDWARE-SHIPMENT SENSE - this record prices a token-based API, so no accelerator is transferred across a border and the ECCN 3A090 hardware licence regime does not attach to the transaction. Recorded null rather than false precisely because a token API is where export control instead becomes an END-USER/TERMS question: the provider applies geographic and end-user restrictions to service access (the AI Diffusion Rule briefly put a tiered country structure on exactly this kind of service before being rescinded on 2025-05-13), and a customer can still be refused under sanctions or end-use policy regardless of where the compute sits. Anyone reading this record for a restricted destination should look at the provider's terms, not at the EAR. Sources for the regime: spl-bis-2025-05-ai-diffusion-rescission, spl-bis-2026-05-d5-guidance. EXPORT CONTROL (2026-10-04): NOT APPLICABLE IN THE HARDWARE-SHIPMENT SENSE - this record prices a token-based API, so no accelerator crosses a border and the ECCN 3A090 hardware licence regime does not attach to the transaction. Recorded NULL rather than false precisely because a token API is where export control instead becomes an END-USER and TERMS question: the provider applies geographic and end-user restrictions to service access (the AI Diffusion Rule briefly put a tiered country structure on exactly this kind of service before being rescinded and unenforced from 2025-05-13), and a customer can still be refused under sanctions or end-use policy regardless of where the compute sits. For a restricted destination, read the provider's terms, not the EAR. Sources: spl-bis-2025-05-ai-diffusion-rescission, spl-bis-2026-05-d5-guidance. LEAD TIME: null - correct and not a gap. A token-priced serverless API is provisioned on request, so there is no lead time to publish; the binding constraint when a model is at capacity is provider-side queuing and any per-account concurrency limit, which this repo records in notes where a vendor publishes one (see the DeepSeek concurrency figures already here). Deliberately NOT recorded: any 'model capacity lead time' estimate, because vendors publish none and the SEO 'GPU lead time' numbers that circulate do not apply to a rented endpoint. Probe log in source spl-negative-no-oem-publishes-lead-time.