Cost model

Up to 24× cheaper per evidenced answer.

The same model, the same question: alone with manually pasted documents – or with c:node, which passes on only the evidenced citations. All prices, assumptions and sources disclosed.

ModelAlone (light) · with c:node (dark)AloneWith c:nodeFactor
Cost per evidenced answer in euros, list prices as of 29 Sep 2026. “Alone” = best case with prompt caching. Time spent gathering documents is not included.
Assumptions

How it is calculated.

Every figure can be recalculated.

Model alone:node + model
Calls until the answerQuestion and three follow-ups – each round resends the entire history.
4
1
Context per call · contract caseAlone: 23 contracts plus statutory excerpts pasted in manually. With c:node: only the evidenced citations.
175,000 tokens
6,000 tokens
Output tokens · large modelsVisible answer plus reasoning. With c:node the context is already evidenced – less reasoning effort.
900 + 1,500
800 + 400
Tokens for evidence checkingThe quote must appear verbatim in the source – c:node checks this deterministically, without a model.
no check
0deterministic
Best case for “alone”: active prompt caching – context written once (+25%), then read cheaply€1 = US$1.1378 · ECB reference rate 28 Sep 2026Net · all amounts excluding VAT
Sources

Where the figures come from.

Every price links to the provider's page.

List prices retrieved on 29 Sep 2026. All amounts net, converted to euros.

Calculate with your numbers.

We set up the model with your case numbers and volumes.

FAQ

About the cost model.

Why is c:node cheaper if it uses the same model?

Because the model doesn't have to read entire folders. c:node finds the relevant passages beforehand and passes on only those. That saves input tokens – and follow-up rounds.

Are the figures measured or calculated?

Calculated – with list prices and disclosed assumptions. The throughput of open models on your own GPU is estimated, not measured.

What about the time spent gathering documents?

That is not included. Without c:node, someone has to find and paste in the documents – with c:node, the connectors do that. So in practice the savings are larger.

Why is the factor so high for Mistral?

In our calculation, Mistral grants no cache discount. Alone, the full context is paid in full every round – with c:node, only the evidence, once.