✓ Last verified: 2026-07-29· Ratios: o200k-class tokenizer, approximate· report an issue →
LLM tokenizers are English-optimised, so the same message costs far more tokens in Japanese, Arabic, Hindi or Russian — often 1.5× to 3× more. This prices the token multiplier for each language, the extra monthly cost of serving non-English users, and a side-by-side table across 20 languages so the real premium of a global user base is obvious.
The multiplier scales both input and output tokens.
—
this language / mo
—English / mo
—extra / mo
—premium
Cost by language at your volume
The same product, the same tokens, priced in each language. Latin-script languages carry a light premium; non-Latin scripts cost far more. Your selected language is marked; the multipliers are approximate for an o200k-class tokenizer — override with a measured value for precision.
Language
Multiplier
Monthly cost
Extra vs English
A global user base is not a flat rate
The cleanest way to blow a launch budget is to price a product in English tokens and then open it to the world. Models bill per token, tokens are what the tokenizer carves out of text, and the tokenizer learned its most efficient chunks from English — so the same sentence, translated, is more tokens, and more tokens is more money. For the Latin-script languages the tax is mild; a Spanish or German user costs perhaps a fifth more than an English one. But the moment you serve a different script the number jumps: Cyrillic nearly doubles, Japanese and Korean sit well above one and a half, and Arabic, Hindi and Thai can run to three times English for identical content — and because output tokens cost several times more than input tokens, the premium bites hardest on the model's reply, the expensive half of the bill. None of the usual savings tricks help here: trimming the prompt or caching a shared preamble cuts English overhead, not the language of the answer. What helps is knowing the number before you commit — which languages you are subsidising, by how much, and whether a cheaper English pipeline wrapped in translation would undercut running the model natively. Price a single request first with the token cost calculator, count tokens for a specific string with the token counter, and if the fix is switching to a model with a friendlier tokenizer, compare the effective rates on the model comparison page.
It starts from the token counts for an English request — input and output separately — and the per-million prices for each. English cost per request is input tokens times input price plus output tokens times output price, divided by a million; monthly cost is that times requests per month. For another language it multiplies both token counts by the language multiplier, a ratio that captures how much more the same content tokenizes to in that language, then reprices. The extra cost is the difference, and the premium percentage is simply the multiplier minus one. The per-language table applies each language's multiplier to your own volume so you can compare them directly. The multipliers are approximate averages for an o200k-class tokenizer and vary with the exact text and model, so treat them as planning figures and override the field with a measured ratio — count the same passage in English and the target language with a token counter — when you need precision.
Frequently asked questions
Why does non-English text cost more tokens?
The tokenizer was trained mostly on English, so it learned long efficient chunks for English and shorter, more numerous ones for everything else. Non-Latin scripts like Arabic, Hindi and Japanese are often split near character by character, with some characters costing more than one token. Same meaning, more tokens, higher bill — and modern tokenizers narrow the gap but do not close it.
How much more does each language cost?
Latin-script languages (Spanish, French, German) run about 1.2–1.3× English. Cyrillic sits near 1.9×, Chinese around 1.4–1.5×, Japanese and Korean 1.6–1.8×, and Arabic, Hindi, Bengali and Thai from 2× to nearly 3×. These are approximate and tokenizer-dependent, so the calculator lets you override the multiplier with a measured value.
Does the overhead apply to output as well as input?
Yes. When the model replies in the user's language, its output is tokenized with the same inefficiency, and since output is usually priced several times higher than input, the premium bites hardest there. This calculator scales both input and output token counts by the multiplier and prices them at their separate rates.
How can I reduce the multilingual token premium?
Switch to a model with a more multilingual tokenizer, wrap a cheap English-only pipeline in translation for heavy-multiplier low-volume languages, or simply price and budget regionally now that you know the number. Prompt trimming and prefix caching do not help, because the cost is in the language of the reply, not the preamble.