GPT-4 vs Saba compared — price per token, context window, multimodality, openness and which to choose. Full 2026 breakdown.
GPT-4 — full profile › · Saba — full profile ›
Prices & specs refreshed from live data · olud.ai
Open-model prices = cheapest provider via OpenRouter; official maker rates may be higher.
| Spec | GPT-4 | Saba | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | Mistral AI | – |
| Type | Proprietary | Proprietary | – |
| Context window | 8K tokens | 33K tokens | |
| Input price | $30/M | $0.2/M | |
| Output price | $60/M | $0.6/M | |
| Vision / multimodal | No | No | – |
| Tool / function calling | Yes | Yes | = Tie |
| Self-hostable | No (API only) | No (API only) | – |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary | – |
Saba is ~100× cheaper than GPT-4 on output tokens ($0.6 vs $60 per M tokens).
| Capability | GPT-4 | Saba |
|---|---|---|
| Open weights (downloadable) | ✗ | ✗ |
| Self-hostable | ✗ | ✗ |
| Runs fully offline | ✗ | ✗ |
| Vision / multimodal | ✗ | ✗ |
| Tool / function calling | ✓ | ✓ |
| 1M+ context window | ✗ | ✗ |
Independent benchmark scores measured by Artificial Analysis. Higher is better (except latency).
Benchmark data by Artificial Analysis.
| Criterion | GPT-4 | Saba |
|---|---|---|
| Cost-efficiency | 2.0 | 5.0 |
| Context window | 2.0 | 2.5 |
| Openness | 1.5 | 1.5 |
| Self-hosting | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Multimodality | 3.5 | 3.5 |
Scores come from live data — output price (cost), context length, open vs closed weights (openness & self-hosting) and vision/tool support (multimodality). Raw task quality isn't scored here; it depends on your benchmark — see the verdict.
OpenAI's flagship model, GPT-4 is a large-scale multimodal language model capable of solving difficult problems with greater accuracy than previous models due to its broader general knowledge and advanced reasoning...
Mistral Saba is a 24B-parameter language model specifically designed for the Middle East and South Asia, delivering accurate and contextually relevant responses while maintaining efficient performance. Trained on curated regional...
Saba is cheaper on output ($0.6/M vs $60/M).
Saba offers the larger context window (33K tokens).
Choose Saba for the lower output price ($0.6/M vs $60/M). It also gives you the larger 33K context window.
Browse the full open-source model leaderboard, thousands of tools and live benchmarks — all in one place.
Open the leaderboard →