Skip to content

fix: update Databricks llama 4 model pricing #11053

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

bepotp
Copy link
Contributor

@bepotp bepotp commented May 22, 2025

Title

Fix Databricks llama 4 model pricing
Input token : $5/M -> $0.5/M
Output token : $15/M -> $1.5/M

Relevant issues

N/A

Pre-Submission checklist

Please complete all items before asking a LiteLLM maintainer to review your PR

  • I have Added testing in the tests/litellm/ directory, Adding at least 1 test is a hard requirement - see details
  • I have added a screenshot of my new test passing locally
  • My PR passes all unit tests on make test-unit
  • My PR's scope is as isolated as possible, it only solves 1 specific problem

Type

🐛 Bug Fix

Changes

Updates Databricks Llama 4 model, reducing the costs by a factor of 10:

Input token costs:

  • Std: 0.000005 -> 0.0000005
  • DBU: 0.00007143 -> 0.000007143

Output token costs:

  • Std: 0.000015 -> 0.0000015
  • DBU: 0.00021429 -> 0.000021429

The changes are applied to both:

  • litellm/model_prices_and_context_window_backup.json
  • model_prices_and_context_window.json

Copy link

vercel bot commented May 22, 2025

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name Status Preview Comments Updated (UTC)
litellm ✅ Ready (Inspect) Visit Preview 💬 Add feedback May 22, 2025 2:47pm

@krrishdholakia
Copy link
Contributor

krrishdholakia commented May 23, 2025

Hey @bepotp can you please use scientific notation - this will reduce the scope for errors

$5/m -> 5e-6

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants