Saba vs Pareto 26.9
Saba costs 12.5x less per output token than Pareto 26.9 ($0.60 vs $7.50 per million). Updated October 23, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.60
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $7.50
Saba or Pareto 26.9: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Saba for output tokens 12.5x cheaper ($0.60 vs $7.50 per million).
No benchmark has tested both yet. Saba has results on AA Intelligence Index, GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) and Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run); Pareto 26.9 has none yet. Compare them on price and context instead.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Saba has a AA Intelligence Index result, 6.5.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Pareto 26.9
Pareto 26.9 takes 262K tokens against 33K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Saba
Saba $0.0005, Pareto 26.9 $0.0063 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Saba not benchmarked, Pareto 26.9 not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
- Widest single gap
- None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
- Output price
- Saba $0.60 against Pareto 26.9 $7.50 per million output tokens, 12.5x apart.
- Context window
- Saba takes 33K tokens, Pareto 26.9 262K.
Benchmark by benchmark
Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Saba | Pareto 26.9 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 6.5 | Not measured | Only Saba measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
| Benchmark | Saba | Pareto 26.9 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 42.4% | Not measured | Only Saba measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 4.3% | Not measured | Only Saba measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Saba | Pareto 26.9 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 61.1% | Not measured | Only Saba measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
Saba costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Saba costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Saba costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | Mistral Saba | Pareto 26.9 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Mistral AI | Unbiased |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | February 17, 2025 | October 13, 2026 |
| Context window | 33K | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.20 | $2.50 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.60 | $7.50 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Saba better than Pareto 26.9 for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Saba for output tokens 12.5x cheaper ($0.60 vs $7.50 per million).
Which is cheaper, Saba or Pareto 26.9?
Saba costs $0.20 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Pareto 26.9 costs $2.50 and $7.50. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Saba or Pareto 26.9?
Pareto 26.9, with 262K tokens against 33K.
Has any benchmark tested both Saba and Pareto 26.9?
No benchmark has tested both yet. Saba has results on AA Intelligence Index, GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) and Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run); Pareto 26.9 has none yet. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 23, 2026.