GintiCalcEvery calculation

SunsetPlan

Model Deprecation Migration Cost Calculator

Deprecation notices arrive on the provider's schedule. Know the number before one lands.

Cost and hours to migrate off a deprecated model

Migration is prompt re-testing, integration updates, regulated-workflow re-validation, and eval runs. Rows assume 1.5 hours per prompt, 4 per integration, 8 per regulated workflow, and $90/hour.

PromptsIntegrationsWeeks leftEngineersTotal hoursTotal costCapacityFits?
501082155$14,750480 hYes
2003082460$42,200480 hYes
2003042460$42,200240 hNo
2003085460$42,2001,200 hYes
500601241,030$93,5001,440 hYes

Rows two and three are identical work on different deadlines. Deprecation notices are usually months, not years, so the binding constraint is engineer-hours available before the shutdown date, not budget.

A model migration cost calculator estimates what it takes to move a production system off an AI model that is being retired, and — critically — whether that work fits in the time the provider has given you. Model deprecation is now a routine operational event rather than a rare disruption: providers retire older versions on published schedules, often with a few months' notice, and any team with models in production will face this repeatedly. The cost is almost never the new model's token price. It is engineering time.

The estimate decomposes into the work that actually consumes weeks. Prompt re-testing is usually the largest count: every prompt tuned against the old model's behaviour has to be re-run, compared, and often rewritten, because a newer model can be objectively better yet produce differently-shaped output that breaks downstream parsing or tone requirements. Integrations need updating where model identifiers, parameters, token limits, or response formats are wired into code. Regulated workflows carry the heaviest per-item cost, because anything that underwent formal validation — in healthcare, finance, or safety contexts — may need that validation repeated with documentation, and this is frequently the long pole that dictates the schedule. Evaluation runs add direct compute cost on top of labour. Summing labour hours at your engineer rate plus evaluation compute gives total migration cost.

The calculator then applies the constraint that matters most: it converts your available engineers and remaining weeks into capacity at roughly thirty productive hours per engineer-week, and reports whether the work fits before shutdown or by how many hours it falls short. That distinction changes the decision. A migration that fits is a planned sprint; one that does not requires adding people, cutting scope, or opening a conversation with the provider about an extension — and all three options are far cheaper to pursue early than in the final fortnight. The source research recommends inventorying prompts, evaluations, integrations, regulated workflows, and release deadlines, which is exactly the inventory this calculator prices. Two habits reduce the number permanently: keeping model identifiers in configuration rather than scattered through code, and maintaining an evaluation suite that can be re-run against a candidate model automatically. Teams with both routinely migrate in days rather than months. This estimates internal effort only and excludes any price difference between the old and new model, which should be modelled separately.

Regulated workflows are usually the long pole

Prompts are numerous but quick; a validated workflow in healthcare, finance, or a safety-critical context can require repeating a formal validation exercise with documentation and sign-off. Three regulated workflows at twenty hours each can outweigh a hundred prompts. Inventory those first — they determine whether the deadline is achievable at all.

Two habits make migrations cheap forever

Keep model identifiers and parameters in configuration rather than scattered through the codebase, so switching is a config change instead of a code hunt. And maintain an automated evaluation suite you can run against any candidate model. Teams with both migrate in days; teams without rediscover every hardcoded assumption under deadline pressure.

Frequently asked questions

120 prompts at 1.5h, 8 integrations at 6h, 3 regulated workflows at 20h, 25 eval runs at $40, $95/hr — what's the cost and does it fit in 8 weeks?

That's 180 + 48 + 60 = 288 hours of labour ($27,360) plus $1,000 in evaluation compute — about $28,360. With 1.5 engineers over 8 weeks you have roughly 360 hours available, so it fits with about 72 hours to spare.

Why does migrating cost anything if the new model is better?

Because 'better' doesn't mean 'identical'. Prompts tuned against the old model's phrasing, formatting, and refusal behaviour can produce differently-shaped output that breaks parsers, changes tone, or shifts edge-case handling. Every one has to be re-tested, and anything formally validated may need revalidating.

What if the work doesn't fit before the shutdown date?

Act immediately rather than late. The options are adding engineers, cutting scope by prioritizing the highest-risk workflows and accepting degradation elsewhere, or asking the provider for an extension — several offer them for customers with a credible plan. All three are far easier to arrange eight weeks out than two.

How is this different from the LLM workload cost calculator?

That one prices ongoing token spend for running a model. This one prices the one-off engineering project of switching models — labour, evaluation compute, and whether it fits your deadline. Run this when a deprecation notice lands; run that to compare the old and new model's running cost.

Related Developer calculators

You might also like

Last updated: August 3, 2026