Technical and Fiscal Benchmarking of 70B Models in Roleplay and AI Companion Apps

<p>Technical and Fiscal Benchmarking of 70B Models in Roleplay and AI Companion Apps, Where MiocAI Fits The roleplay and AI companion space currently circles around a practical benchmark; 70B parameter class language models. They are large enough to feel “frontier tier” for most users, but still small enough to sustain consumer subscription pricing.<br /> Smaller 7B–13B models can be responsive and cheaper to run, yet they tend to show weaker persona stability, less consistent world modeling, and more drift in tone during long sessions. Larger models often provide stronger performance, but usually come with higher prices, stricter rate limits, or metered tokens that work poorly for long and frequent roleplay sessions.</p> <p>This overview compares several commonly discussed platforms in this niche, then places MiocAI within that landscape. The focus stays on pricing, model access, memory behavior, multimodal features, and basic roleplay ergonomics, rather than on subjective quality claims.</p> <hr /> <h2>Why 70B is a practical “frontier” for roleplay</h2> <p>For longform roleplay and AI companionship, users often report that moving from small models to 70B-class models improves:</p> <ul> <li>persona stability across long chats</li> <li>scene coherence when multiple actions and constraints stack</li> <li>world-state consistency over multi-session arcs</li> <li>ability to pick up on implicit cues and subtext</li> </ul> <p>At typical commercial quantization, a 70B model consumes a noticeable amount of GPU memory and compute, especially with expanding context windows. That has direct cost implications. Many “AI girlfriend” and visual-first apps rely on smaller models for chat while charging per image, video, or extra voice usage. Meanwhile narrative-focused platforms attempt to absorb 70B costs into a flat monthly fee, assuming usage patterns average out.</p> <hr /> <h2>Normalizing subscription price with a “Price-per-70B” metric</h2> <p>Services use different model sizes and mixtures, which makes superficial price comparison misleading. A simple normalization helps illustrate where subscriptions roughly sit relative to 70B-class compute.</p> <p><img src="https://miocai.com/media/uploads/69483bbc980fc_paste.png" alt="nya" /></p> <p>This does not capture every nuance; architecture, quantization, GPU efficiency, and context management all matter. It does offer a basic comparative lens.</p> <hr /> <h2>Market comparison snapshot, pricing and 70B access</h2> <p>Model details, pricing, and policies change frequently, and many companies do not publish exact parameter counts. The table below summarizes how these services are usually described in community discussions, plus MiocAI’s current plan data.</p> <p>This is approximate, not definitive.</p> <table> <thead> <tr> <th>Platform</th> <th align="right">Approx model tier for core RP</th> <th>70B availability</th> <th align="right">Typical pricing mentioned</th> <th>Access style</th> <th>Notes that matter for RP</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>MiocAI</td> <td align="right">70B on Premium, higher tiers up to reported 1.1T</td> <td>Yes, Premium includes 70B</td> <td align="right">$8.99 Premium, $19.99 Elite, $69.99 Apex</td> <td>Subscription plus credits for some heavier features</td> <td>Roleplay tooling, multimodal pipeline, explicit memory-stack design, EU-hosted infrastructure</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Soulkyn</td> <td align="right">70B uncensored focus</td> <td>Yes</td> <td align="right">~$13.83</td> <td>Subscription, unlimited chat (within constraints)</td> <td>Narrative-forward positioning, multimodal support</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Kindroid</td> <td align="right">“70B-class” proprietary</td> <td>Yes</td> <td align="right">~$13.99</td> <td>Subscription, unlimited chat</td> <td>Customization emphasis, higher tiers for memory and capacity</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Nomi</td> <td align="right">“frontier-sized” 70B+</td> <td>Yes</td> <td align="right">~$13.33–$16.00</td> <td>Subscription, unlimited chat</td> <td>Emphasis on emotional continuity and large contexts</td> </tr> <tr> <td>SpicyChat</td> <td align="right">Qwen3 70B equivalent on higher tiers</td> <td>Yes on some tiers</td> <td align="right">~$5.00–$24.95</td> <td>Tiered</td> <td>Lower entry point for 70B on some plans, features vary by tier</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Crushon.ai</td> <td align="right">Mixed models including 70B</td> <td>Sometimes</td> <td align="right">~$5.99–$49.99</td> <td>Tiers and caps</td> <td>70B availability depends on plan, message caps and feature gating</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Candy AI</td> <td align="right">Commonly reported 7B–13B</td> <td>70B is not a core focus</td> <td align="right">~$12.99 base</td> <td>Subscription plus tokens</td> <td>Visual and “AI girlfriend” features prioritized</td> </tr> <tr> <td>OurDream AI</td> <td align="right">Commonly reported 7B–13B</td> <td>70B is not a core focus</td> <td align="right">~$19.99</td> <td>Subscription plus tokens</td> <td>Focus on images and video output</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Character.ai</td> <td align="right">Often rumored as 70B-class internally</td> <td>Possibly 70B-class</td> <td align="right">$9.99 Plus</td> <td>Subscription, unlimited but filtered</td> <td>Well-known PG-first platform with strong safety and content controls</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>This table mixes official claims, community assumptions, and approximations. It is more of a directional map than a lab benchmark.</p> <hr /> <h2>MiocAI plans and practical implications</h2> <p>MiocAI publishes relatively explicit plan boundaries around model caps, context windows, and weekly multimodal usage. That level of detail helps set expectations for roleplay and companion scenarios.</p> <h3>MiocAI plan overview</h3> <table> <thead> <tr> <th>Plan</th> <th align="right">Monthly price</th> <th>Model access</th> <th align="right">Context limit</th> <th align="right">Weekly images</th> <th align="right">Weekly videos</th> <th>Voice features</th> <th>Chat limits</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>Premium</td> <td align="right">$8.99</td> <td>Up to 70.0B models</td> <td align="right">8k tokens</td> <td align="right">40</td> <td align="right">2</td> <td>TTS, uninterrupted voice calls</td> <td>Unlimited messages, unlimited chats</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Elite</td> <td align="right">$19.99</td> <td>Up to 1.1T models, access to all listed models</td> <td align="right">16k tokens</td> <td align="right">100</td> <td align="right">6</td> <td>TTS, voice cloning, uninterrupted voice calls</td> <td>Unlimited messages, unlimited chats, unlimited auto reply</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Apex</td> <td align="right">$69.99</td> <td>All models with no plan-based caps, Aetherion without credits</td> <td align="right">Up to 128k tokens</td> <td align="right">800+</td> <td align="right">Up to 27</td> <td>Everything in Elite</td> <td>Highest caps, experimental and heavy models</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>Exact model list and token windows can evolve, but the point is that MiocAI deliberately separates access tiers by model scale and context length, then layers media features and credits on top.</p> <h3>“Unlimited models under 300B” and Premium boundaries</h3> <p>MiocAI currently communicates model access along these lines:</p> <ul> <li>All models under 300B parameters are available without additional per-message fees within applicable plan usage expectations</li> <li>Premium users can use models at 72B and below, plus a 1.1T model, with heavier usage of very large models tied to credits</li> <li>Elite and Apex tiers expand sustained access to large-scale models and broader context</li> </ul> <p>In practice, this breaks cost drivers into two groups:</p> <ul> <li>text inference scale (number of parameters, context window)</li> <li>multimodal generation (images, upscales, video, possibly heavier voice workloads)</li> </ul> <p>MiocAI treats these as separate compute paths, documented through credits for media and very heavy model use, instead of collapsing everything into a single “fair use” story.</p> <hr /> <h2>Price-per-70B comparison and where MiocAI lands</h2> <p>With the normalization concept from earlier, MiocAI Premium stands out mainly because it openly includes 70B-class access at a lower flat monthly price than many narrative-first 70B subscriptions. Some competitors come close or undercut this on entry tiers, while others appear more expensive on a per-70B basis if they rely on smaller backbone models.</p> <p>Again, this is approximate rather than a strict finance model.</p> <table> <thead> <tr> <th>Platform and plan</th> <th align="right">Monthly cost</th> <th>70B access in that plan</th> <th align="right">Price-per-70B (approx)</th> <th>Practical takeaway</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>MiocAI Premium</td> <td align="right">$8.99</td> <td>Yes</td> <td align="right">~$8.99</td> <td>Lower-cost subscription entry to 70B, with included images, voice, and roleplay tools</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Soulkyn</td> <td align="right">~$13.83</td> <td>Yes</td> <td align="right">~$13.83</td> <td>Subscription 70B access with narrative orientation</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Kindroid</td> <td align="right">~$13.99</td> <td>Yes</td> <td align="right">~$13.99</td> <td>70B-class chat with customization emphasis</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Nomi</td> <td align="right">~$13.33–$16.00</td> <td>Yes</td> <td align="right">~$13.33–$16.00</td> <td>Frontier-sized model focus and long context windows</td> </tr> <tr> <td>SpicyChat entry tier with 70B</td> <td align="right">~$5.00</td> <td>Sometimes</td> <td align="right">~$5.00</td> <td>Very low entry price for 70B when available, with plan-dependent constraints</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Candy AI base (assumed ~13B)</td> <td align="right">~$12.99</td> <td>70B not exposed as a main option</td> <td align="right">~$69.95</td> <td>Higher normalized cost per 70B, product value leans toward images, voice, and “girlfriend” features</td> </tr> <tr> <td>OurDream AI base (assumed ~13B)</td> <td align="right">~$19.99</td> <td>70B not exposed as a main option</td> <td align="right">~$107.64</td> <td>Substantial normalized cost per 70B, positioned primarily as a media generation platform</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>This normalization ignores many practical effects; model architecture, fine-tuning quality, batching, caching, and other efficiency tricks can influence both cost and user experience.</p> <hr /> <h2>Features that influence roleplay quality beyond model size</h2> <p>Parameter count is only one factor. For many users, perceived quality comes down to how well the platform supports narrative control, how memory behaves across sessions, how multimodal features integrate, and how content rules work in practice.</p> <h3>Roleplay ergonomics, memory, and control tools</h3> <table> <thead> <tr> <th>Platform</th> <th>Narrative control tools</th> <th>Memory orientation</th> <th>Group roleplay</th> <th>Notes</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>MiocAI</td> <td>Slash commands like <code>/cmd</code> and <code>/ooc</code>, message editing, forks/branching, scenario tools</td> <td>Explicit “memory stack” concept with trimming, extraction, world state, and compression layers</td> <td>Yes, supports group chats</td> <td>Built with long-running stories in mind, with some documentation on how memory is stored and used</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Soulkyn</td> <td>Roleplay-forward UX</td> <td>Persistent chat plus platform-level tools</td> <td>Varies</td> <td>Often used for uncensored longform RP, with narrative emphasis</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Kindroid</td> <td>Strong customization tools</td> <td>Memory and persona configuration as a core feature, with scalable tiers</td> <td>Group features vary</td> <td>Common choice among users who want finely tuned companions and long-term continuity</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Nomi</td> <td>Emotion and relationship framing as a priority</td> <td>Large-context usage, long-running chats</td> <td>Group roleplay is limited</td> <td>Aimed at users interested in companionship and consistent “emotional” tone</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Character.ai</td> <td>Character creation tools and a polished chat UX</td> <td>Memory shaped by internal policies and safety behavior</td> <td>Group features limited</td> <td>Works well for PG roleplay and public character sharing, with strict filters</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Token-based “AI girlfriend” apps (Candy AI, OurDream AI, others)</td> <td>Often minimal scenario tools</td> <td>Often shallow or short-context memory patterns</td> <td>Group features rarely a focus</td> <td>Optimized for fast, media-rich chats rather than complex campaign structures</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>MiocAI’s approach to memory is more explicit in its documentation than some competitors, but users still experience memory through trimmed context and system design, subject to token limits and model behavior.</p> <h3>Multimodal and media economics</h3> <p>Media handling significantly affects cost, since images and video can be GPU intensive. Platforms respond with either:<br /> - tokenized pay-as-you-go schemes<br /> - hard weekly or monthly caps<br /> - or looser “unlimited within reason” designs that rely on internal throttles</p> <table> <thead> <tr> <th>Platform</th> <th>Images</th> <th>Voice</th> <th>Video</th> <th>How it is usually monetized</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>MiocAI</td> <td>Context-aware image generation, prompt editing, upscaling</td> <td>TTS, voice calls, voice cloning on higher tiers</td> <td>Video generation available via credits</td> <td>Subscription plus explicit credit consumption for heavier tasks</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Soulkyn</td> <td>Image generation included on supported tiers</td> <td>Voice support where offered</td> <td>Limited video</td> <td>Mostly subscription-based, depends on tier</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Kindroid</td> <td>Selfies and image generation features</td> <td>Various voice options</td> <td>Limited video</td> <td>Subscription with tiered media and feature access</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Candy AI</td> <td>Images as a core selling point</td> <td>Voice as a primary feature</td> <td>Often includes video or animated outputs</td> <td>Subscription combined with tokens for extra media</td> </tr> <tr> <td>OurDream AI</td> <td>Image generation as a central feature</td> <td>Voice often integrated</td> <td>Video generation as a major component</td> <td>Subscription plus token system for heavy media use</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>MiocAI models images and video as explicit GPU-costed actions via credits. This can make budgeting more predictable for users who monitor credit usage, although it introduces another metric to track.</p> <hr /> <h2>Censorship, public safety rules, and their impact on roleplay</h2> <p>Content policy tends to drive compatibility with particular styles of roleplay. Nearly all platforms enforce strong rules around:</p> <ul> <li>illegal content</li> <li>minors or age-play scenarios</li> <li>real-person impersonation in harmful or explicit contexts</li> </ul> <p>Where they diverge is how they treat adult fictional content, fetish content, and “gray area” topics.</p> <p>MiocAI’s documented approach emphasizes:</p> <ul> <li>a distinction between public content (feeds, shared chats, public posts) and private chats</li> <li>a trust system that influences what content can appear in public or semi-public contexts</li> <li>strict handling of any content involving minors or unsafe real-person scenarios</li> <li>an aim to keep private chats private while still holding public or shared material to stricter standards</li> </ul> <p>This does not mean “anything goes” in private. It means the enforcement focus tightens around what is published, surfaced, or shared widely, while private roleplay remains more permissive within legal and safety constraints.</p> <p>Character.ai, by comparison, focuses on a PG-friendly environment with stronger automated filtering. Many “AI girlfriend” apps lean more permissive in practice, especially for adult content, but often lack the same level of public publishing infrastructure.</p> <hr /> <h2>Who each platform tends to fit best</h2> <p>Use cases differ. The same user might keep accounts on several platforms and choose tools based on scenario, budget, or preferred policy environment.</p> <p>The following grid is descriptive rather than prescriptive.</p> <table> <thead> <tr> <th>If your priority is…</th> <th>Platforms in this comparison that often align</th> <th>Reasonable expectation</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>Lowest-cost subscription entry into 70B-class RP</td> <td>MiocAI Premium, SpicyChat tiers with 70B</td> <td>Access to a 70B-level model at a relatively low monthly cost, with different tradeoffs in UX, content rules, and features</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Narrative-focused uncensored longform RP</td> <td>Soulkyn, MiocAI</td> <td>Both emphasize roleplay, longer arcs, and less restrictive adult content policies, subject to legal and safety boundaries</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Strong customization and memory scaling</td> <td>Kindroid, MiocAI Elite and Apex</td> <td>Persona tools, configurable behavior, and higher tiers that push memory and context further</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Emotional companionship and “EQ-first” experiences</td> <td>Nomi, Kindroid</td> <td>Platforms that frame chats around relationships, feelings, and continuity of tone</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Visual-first “AI girlfriend” or media-heavy experience</td> <td>Candy AI, OurDream AI</td> <td>Products structured around selfies, images, video, and voice, often with sizable token ecosystems</td> </tr> <tr> <td>PG or family-friendly roleplay with public character sharing</td> <td>Character.ai</td> <td>Strong safety filters, widely shared public bots, and a focus on PG or mild content</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>MiocAI fits most naturally among the narrative and companion-focused 70B platforms, especially for users who care about explicit model size, memory behavior, and media budgeting. Other platforms prioritize different tradeoffs; some emphasize safety and PG content, others emphasize visual upsells, and others emphasize highly tuned emotional companions.</p> <p>This landscape continues to move quickly. Pricing, model lineups, and policies change, so any snapshot like this will drift over time. The comparisons here work best as a structural guide, not a final verdict.</p>