Guides → Playground & Guide → AI Model Jurisdiction Risk Scorer - Data Sovereignty and Compliance Band

AI Model Jurisdiction Risk Scorer - Data Sovereignty and Compliance Band

Meet Marcus Lee. VP Engineering at a healthcare SaaS evaluating cheaper models. "The open-weight Chinese models would cut our inference bill by 80%. Can we actually use them on patient data, and if not, is there a version we can?"

🔥 Finance wants the saving; Legal says 'not on regulated data through a China endpoint.' We need a clear, defensible answer per model.

The story

The cost case for open-weight models is settled; the governance case is where deals stall. A China-hosted endpoint processes your prompts under China's National Intelligence Law and usually carries no published SOC2/HIPAA posture. For public or internal data that may be fine. For regulated PII or health/financial data it is often a blocker - and a vague 'it's probably fine' is exactly what a compliance review rejects.

Marcus does not need a lecture on data sovereignty - he needs a per-model verdict he can put in a decision doc. This tool takes a model and a data class and returns a green / amber / red band with the concrete reasons, so the answer is defensible rather than a gut call.

The crucial nuance is that open weights are mitigable. Because these models publish their weights, self-hosting them in your own cloud region (or routing through a vetted non-China gateway) moves the jurisdiction - which can flip a red verdict to green. The scorer makes that mitigation a toggle, so you can see exactly which models become usable once self-hosted, and which (API-only frontier models) were never a jurisdiction problem in the first place.

This is a risk scorer, not a cost calculator. Once a data class lands amber or red, it points you to the AI compliance cost calculator for the dollar overhead.

Ready to run the numbers?

Open the full calculator. Pick a model, enter your tokens, see per-call, daily, monthly, and annual cost.

🚀 Open the full calculator →

Top 3 right now

Verified 13 hours ago

About this calculator: AI Model Jurisdiction Risk Scorer - Data Sovereignty and Compliance Band

Score the data-jurisdiction risk of any open-weight or frontier model for your data class. Green / amber / red from jurisdiction, license, and compliance posture - with the self-host mitigation that clears China-jurisdiction exposure.

Reading your result

The band is data-class-specific. The same model can be green for public data and red for regulated PII. Always score against the data class you will actually send.

Red is not a dead end for open-weight models. If a model is red because of China jurisdiction, the self-host toggle shows whether self-hosting clears it. API-only models cannot be moved this way.

Every governance field is curated and inferred (asterisked). Jurisdiction, license, compliance posture and residency reflect the default provider endpoint and aicost.ai's reading of public terms, not a vendor guarantee. Use it to frame the question, then confirm in your own review.

What "good" looks like:
  • Green, typically: US/EU/Canada-jurisdiction models with a published SOC2/HIPAA posture (Claude, GPT, Gemini), for most data classes.
  • Amber, typically: US open-weight models without published certs on highest-sensitivity data; or China-jurisdiction endpoints on internal data; or any model whose jurisdiction is unverified.
  • Red, typically: China-jurisdiction provider endpoints with no published compliance, used on regulated PII or PHI/PCI data.
  • Mitigation that works: self-hosting open weights in your own region, or a vetted non-China gateway - it changes the jurisdiction and can move red to amber/green.

What this calculator can't tell you

Honest limitations. Every model is wrong; some are useful. Where this one falls short:

For these, use: AI Compliance Cost to price the annual overhead once a data class lands amber or red. Self-Host Breakeven to price the mitigation.

Most popular

Everything above is the 80% case. The last 20% is where the money is.

The gaps we just listed are real, and they are the expensive ones: your actual prompts, your switching cost, your MLOps overhead. An AICost expert spends the hour on your AI and cloud costs, not a generic playbook. You leave with a written report: the way forward, in 30 days of concrete steps.

  • An hour with the people who built the engines
  • Report the same day
  • The fee credits toward any AICost plan
  • Two slots a week
Book a Solution Session: $299 → or $99 for small business →

Not sure yet? The $39 AICost Blueprint credits toward a Session, and the Session fee credits toward any plan. You never pay twice for the same ground. See all pricing →

Ready to run your own numbers?

You have seen the shape of it. Open the calculator with your model, your tokens, your volume.

🚀 Open the full calculator →

Where to go next

Price the compliance overhead →

Annual governance cost (staff, audit logs, certification) once a data class needs controls.

See the cost spread →

The dollar gap between open-weight and frontier models, with the same jurisdiction caveat.

Price the mitigation →

When self-hosting the open weights pays off versus the provider endpoint.

Methodology

Source
/tools/pricing-history
Extraction
Governance fields curated in the aicost model-governance layer from each lab's public license and hosting terms.
Editorial gate
8-layer defense, see aicost.ai/ai-cost-economics
Last verified
7/20/2026, 8:00:00 PM

Author: Subu Vdaygiri, Founder & CEO of CloudIntelligence.ai. 17 years Fortune 100 (Ingram Micro, Siemens). Wharton CTO program · Kellogg CPO program · 10× AWS+Azure certified.

📖 Data sources & methodology 158 text models · 9 embeddings · 37 vision · 55 audio · 8 vector DBs across 10 vendor pages · last verified 2026-07-21

Methodology

  • All prices are USD per 1 million tokens, current as of 2026-07-21.
  • Vendor-published values have no mark. Inferred/extrapolated values are marked with * and listed below.
  • Batch API discounts are 50% off standard rates across providers that offer Batch mode.
  • Prompt caching discounts vary by provider (typically 80-90% off cached input tokens).
  • Regional data-residency surcharges (Anthropic 1.1x, OpenAI 1.1x, Google regional tiers) are NOT included in base rates.
  • Long-context pricing tiers apply when input exceeds model threshold.
  • Embedding prices are input-only (no output tokens generated).

Primary sources

Last-verified date is the most recent successful daily snapshot (aicost_pricing_snapshots) or, when no snapshot exists yet, the latest successful crawler run (aicost_crawler_runs). 10 of 10 vendors are currently verified. Aggregator services (TokenCost, AI Pricing Guru, etc.) are not listed.

Anthropic
2026-07-21
https://www.anthropic.com/pricing
Daily snapshot since Sep 2023 · 624 days captured
Anthropic Docs
2026-07-21
https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/pricing
Daily snapshot since Sep 2023 · 624 days captured
OpenAI
2026-07-21
https://openai.com/api/pricing/
Daily snapshot since Sep 2023 · 625 days captured
Google AI
2026-07-21
https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing
Daily snapshot since Dec 2023 · 600 days captured
Google Vertex
2026-07-21
https://cloud.google.com/vertex-ai/generative-ai/pricing
Daily snapshot since Dec 2023 · 600 days captured
DeepSeek
2026-07-21
https://api-docs.deepseek.com/quick_start/pricing
Daily snapshot since May 2024 · 539 days captured
xAI
2026-07-21
https://x.ai/api
Daily snapshot since Nov 2024 · 457 days captured
Mistral
2026-07-21
https://mistral.ai/pricing
Daily snapshot since Dec 2023 · 598 days captured
Cohere
2026-07-21
https://cohere.com/pricing
Daily snapshot since Sep 2023 · 624 days captured

Inferred values (marked with * in calculator tables)

Derived from industry conventions, not directly published by the vendor. Typical conventions: cached input = 10% of base (90% off), Batch API = 50% of base (50% off).

Vendor / Model Field Why it’s inferred
Anthropic — Claude Sonnet 4.6 cachedInput Derived at 10% of input rate — Anthropic publishes 90% cache-hit discount on this tier.
Anthropic — Claude Sonnet 4.5 cachedInput Derived at 10% of input rate; same 90% cache-hit convention as Sonnet 4.6.
Anthropic — Claude Sonnet 4.5 batchInput Derived at 50% of standard input — Anthropic documents uniform 50% Batch discount.
Anthropic — Claude Sonnet 4.5 batchOutput Derived at 50% of standard output — Anthropic documents uniform 50% Batch discount.
Anthropic — Claude Haiku 4.5 cachedInput Derived at 10% of input rate — Anthropic 90% cache-hit discount convention.
OpenAI — GPT-5.4 Mini cachedInput Derived at 10% of input — OpenAI documents automatic 90% discount on cache hits across GPT-5.x tier.
OpenAI — GPT-5.4 Nano cachedInput Derived at 10% of input — OpenAI 90% cache-hit convention.
OpenAI — GPT-5.4 Nano batchInput Derived at 50% of input — OpenAI Batch API uniform 50% discount.
OpenAI — GPT-5.4 Nano batchOutput Derived at 50% of output — OpenAI Batch API uniform 50% discount.
OpenAI — GPT-5.4 Pro cachedInput Derived at 10% of input — OpenAI 90% cache-hit convention.
OpenAI — GPT-5.4 Pro batchInput Derived at 50% of input — OpenAI Batch API uniform 50% discount.
OpenAI — GPT-5.4 Pro batchOutput Derived at 50% of output — OpenAI Batch API uniform 50% discount.
OpenAI — GPT-5.2 cachedInput Derived at 10% of input; no residency uplift.
OpenAI — GPT-5.2 batchInput Derived at 50% of input.
OpenAI — GPT-5.2 batchOutput Derived at 50% of output.
OpenAI — GPT-5 cachedInput Derived at 10% of input.
OpenAI — GPT-5 batchInput Derived at 50% of input.
OpenAI — GPT-5 batchOutput Derived at 50% of output.
OpenAI — GPT-5.5 Pro cachedInput Derived at 10% of input — OpenAI does not publish a cached rate for *-pro models; using the family convention.
OpenAI — GPT-5.5 Pro batchInput Derived at 50% of input.
OpenAI — GPT-5.5 Pro batchOutput Derived at 50% of output.
OpenAI — GPT-5.2 Pro cachedInput Derived at 10% of input — pro-tier convention.
OpenAI — GPT-5.2 Pro batchInput Derived at 50% of input.
OpenAI — GPT-5.2 Pro batchOutput Derived at 50% of output.
OpenAI — GPT-5.1 batchInput Derived at 50% of input.
OpenAI — GPT-5.1 batchOutput Derived at 50% of output.
OpenAI — GPT-5 Pro batchInput Derived at 50% of input.
OpenAI — GPT-5 Pro batchOutput Derived at 50% of output.
OpenAI — GPT-5 Nano cachedInput Derived at 10% of input.
OpenAI — GPT-5 Nano batchInput Derived at 50% of input.
OpenAI — GPT-5 Nano batchOutput Derived at 50% of output.
Google — Gemini 3 Flash cachedInput Derived at 10% of input — Google caching discount convention ~90%.
Google — Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite cachedInput Derived at 10% of input — Google caching convention.
Google — Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite batchInput Derived at 50% of input — Google Batch API uniform 50% discount.
Google — Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite batchOutput Derived at 50% of output — Google Batch API uniform 50% discount.
Google — Gemini 2.5 Pro cachedInput Derived at 10% of input.
Google — Gemini 2.5 Flash cachedInput Derived at 10% of input.
Google — Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite cachedInput Derived at 10% of input — Google caching convention.
Google — Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite batchInput Derived at 50% of input — Google Batch API uniform 50% discount.
Google — Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite batchOutput Derived at 50% of output — Google Batch API uniform 50% discount.
Google — Gemini 2.0 Flash cachedInput Derived at 25% of input per Google 2.0 family caching rates.
Google — Gemini 2.0 Flash batchInput Derived at 50% of input — Google Batch API uniform 50% discount.
Google — Gemini 2.0 Flash batchOutput Derived at 50% of output — Google Batch API uniform 50% discount.
Google — Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite cachedInput Derived at 10% of input — Google caching convention.
Google — Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite batchInput Derived at 50% of input — Google Batch API uniform 50% discount.
Google — Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite batchOutput Derived at 50% of output — Google Batch API uniform 50% discount.
xAI — Grok 4 (legacy) cachedInput Extrapolated at 25% of base.

Pricing is cross-verified against the LiteLLM community registry when available. Daily snapshots are kept in aicost_pricing_snapshots; every change is logged to aicost_price_changelog with old & new values for full audit trail. Read the full methodology →