The Embedder's Dilemma: LLMs Are Better, but at What Cost?
Adnan El Assadi · Niklas Muennighoff · Jinhyuk Lee
The best LLM and the best embedding model tie on MTEB(LLM), but the LLM costs up to 1,431× more; embeddings dominate the Pareto frontier and should remain the default, with LLMs reserved for reasoning-heavy retrieval.
摘要
Should you replace your text-embedding pipeline with a large language model? We answer this with a controlled, cost-aware comparison of ten LLMs across six families and 26 embedding models (118M to 14B parameters) on 37 tasks spanning classification, semantic textual similarity (STS), clustering, pair classification, and retrieval. In aggregate the two paradigms are effectively tied: the best LLM (Gemini 3.1 Pro, 77.6) and the best embedding model (77.2) differ by 0.4 points. Their strengths differ by task: LLMs lead on reasoning-heavy retrieval, embedding models lead on classification, and the two match on clustering, STS, and pair classification. Reaching that parity is expensive. An LLM costs up to 1,431× more than an embedding model of comparable quality (USD 154 vs. USD 0.11 per benchmark pass), and the open LLMs tested process tokens 2.5 to 736× more slowly on the same GPU. Reasoning tokens account for 28 to 81% of LLM inference cost; lower reasoning budgets preserve or improve retrieval quality for most models in our ablation. The Pareto frontier contains the leading embedding models and one LLM, Gemini 3.1 Pro. These results support a division of labour: use embedding models for similarity, classification, and clustering, and reserve LLMs for reasoning-intensive retrieval. Our code, datasets, and results are publicly available at https://github.com/embeddings-benchmark/embedders-dilemma.