Loading article...
Loading article...
Stream/Area:
-
Subject:
-
Paper ID:
IJSREM67653
Volume:
10 |
10 |
Oct 2026
Pages:
1-4
Publication Frequency:
Monthly (12 issues per year)
License:International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License, allowing free use and distribution with proper attribution.

Department of Information technology and Computer science
D. G. Ruparel College of arts, science and commerce

Department of Information technology and Computer science
D. G. Ruparel College of arts, science and commerce
Language models now support tasks ranging from customer service to code generation, and organizations must decide whether a compact model or a frontier-scale model suits each workload. This paper compares Small Language Models and Large Language Models (LLMs) on three dimensions: operational efficiency, cost, and enterprise adoption. The study is a secondary-data analysis based on published model papers, technical reports, and vendor documentation, supported by a transparent total-cost-of-ownership (TCO) model whose assumptions are stated openly. The analysis shows that SLMs need far less memory and hardware, can run on a single consumer-grade GPU after quantization, and become cheaper than API-based access once monthly request volume passes roughly one million under the assumed conditions. LLMs remain stronger in multi-step reasoning and open-ended problems. Adoption follows organizational maturity: firms with limited ML staff favor managed LLM APIs, while technically mature teams increasingly self-host SLMs. The paper proposes a routing-based hybrid strategy that sends each request to the smallest model able to handle it, and concludes that the choice is a matter of workload fit rather than a contest between two model classes.
KEYWORDS
This paper compared small and large language models on efficiency, cost, and adoption. SLMs require much less memory and hardware, can be served locally, and, under the stated assumptions, repay their upfront cost within roughly a year at about one million requests per month, sooner at higher volume or when compared with premium APIs. LLMs retain their advantage for complex reasoning and novel problems. Adoption follows technical maturity, data-governance needs, and workload volume. The results indicate that the question is not which model class is better but which is right for each task. A routing-based hybrid, using SLMs for frequent well-defined work and LLMs for hard cases, offers a practical way to balance quality, cost, and control.
1. A. Vaswani et al., “Attention Is All You Need,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), vol. 30, 2017. arXiv:1706.03762. 2. T. Brown et al., “Language Models are Few-Shot Learners,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), vol. 33, 2020. arXiv:2005.14165. 3. H. Touvron et al., “Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models,” arXiv:2307.09288, 2023. 4. A. Q. Jiang et al., “Mistral 7B,” arXiv:2310.06825, 2023. 5. M. Abdin et al., “Phi-3 Technical Report: A Highly Capable Language Model Locally on Your Phone,” arXiv:2404.14219, 2024. 6. G. Hinton, O. Vinyals, and J. Dean, “Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network,” arXiv:1503.02531, 2015. 7. T. Dettmers, A. Pagnoni, A. Holtzman, and L. Zettlemoyer, “QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMs,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), vol. 36, 2023. arXiv:2305.14314. 8. W. Kwon et al., “Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention,” in Proc. ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP), 2023. arXiv:2309.06180. 9. L. Chen, M. Zaharia, and J. Zou, “FrugalGPT: How to Use Large Language Models While Reducing Cost and Improving Performance,” arXiv:2305.05176, 2023. 10. P. Belcak et al., “Small Language Models are the Future of Agentic AI,” arXiv:2506.02153, 2025.
Publication Date
10/5/2026
Peer Review Type
Double-Blind Peer Review
Review Rounds: 2
Documents
Article Views
0
Total views since publication
PDF Downloads
7
Total downloads since publication
Geographic Reach
5
Digital Preservation: This article is permanently archived on Zenodo and complies with all data preservation standards across major indexing platforms.
Plagiarism Screening
This manuscript has been checked for plagiarism using TurnitinPlagiarismChecker software.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this research work.
Funding Information
No funding information available for this research.
Related research in the same subject area
Loading similar articles...