Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemma 3 12B vs Llama 3.1 70B Instruct

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct leads Gemma 3 12B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 6.6 to 3.8, and Gemma 3 12B costs 3.4x less per output token ($0.1625 vs $0.56 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 37 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Gemma 3 12B Replace Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Gemma 3 12BGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
28.0
Output $/M
$0.1625
26
Llama 3.1 70B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
24.3
Output $/M
$0.56
11
vs boards won of 37 shared

Gemma 3 12B or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Gemma 3 12B for output tokens 3.4x cheaper ($0.1625 vs $0.56 per million) and work measured by LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) or Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Model AGemma 3 12BGoogleNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BLlama 3.1 70B InstructMeta LlamaNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
37
Gemma 3 12B only
6
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct only
10
Like-for-like categories
7 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Gemma 3 12B not benchmarked, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
Knowledge, 15.1 points apart on average over 5 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena Text: German: Gemma 3 12B 1370 against Llama 3.1 70B Instruct 1222, 24.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemma 3 12B $0.1625 against Llama 3.1 70B Instruct $0.56 per million output tokens, 3.4x apart.
Context window
Both take 131K tokens.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGemma 3 12BBarsLlama 3.1 70B InstructTies
Coding22
Intelligence02
Agentic work01
Reasoning33
Math50
Knowledge41
General122
All shared boards2611
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index22
Coding benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
AA Coding Index5.8Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)13.7%23.2%Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
SciCode16.4%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)0.8%3.0%Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
WeirdMLNot measured9.0%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: coding12811260Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: software and IT13131260Gemma 3 12B
SciCode0.0%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index3.86.6Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Epoch Capabilities Index123.5125.9Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
AA Agentic Index0.1Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
τ²-Bench Telecom10.8%15.2%Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BALROGNot measured27.9%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
TheAgentCompanyNot measured6.9%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)30.4%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index33
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)34.9%40.9%Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)4.2%4.5%Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)39.5%44.2%Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: hard prompts13091241Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: expert12481209Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13181261Gemma 3 12B
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Math benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
AA Math Index18.34.0Gemma 3 12B
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)18.3%4.0%Gemma 3 12B
OTIS Mock AIME16.7%3.6%Gemma 3 12B
MATH level 5Not measured36.7%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: math13071252Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: mathematical work13361253Gemma 3 12B
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index41
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)59.5%67.6%Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
MMLUNot measured80.1%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: science13661276Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13341257Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: legal and government13811283Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: business and finance13761235Gemma 3 12B
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index122
General benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
IFBench36.7%34.4%Gemma 3 12B
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)8.3%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 12B measured
DTBench48.8%60.0%Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
LMCA4.5%14.8%Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
LMArena Text13341261Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: instruction following12991231Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: creative writing13311232Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: English13491294Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: non-English13181219Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1215Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: German13701222Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1132Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1140Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1262Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1253Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Russian13351234Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: multi-turn13341256Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: longer queries13171241Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: writing and language13071236Gemma 3 12B
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12971230Gemma 3 12B
Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Gemma 3 12B and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Gemma 3 12B$0.0002Fits in one request
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct$0.0008Fits in one request

Gemma 3 12B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemma 3 12B$0.0042Fits in one request
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct$0.030Fits in one request

Gemma 3 12B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemma 3 12B$0.017Exceeds the context window
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct$0.118Exceeds the context window

Gemma 3 12B costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Gemma 3 12B and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
SpecificationGoogle Gemma 3 12BMeta Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
MakerGoogleMeta Llama
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedMarch 13, 2025July 23, 2024
Context window131K131K
Input $/Mtok$0.075$0.56
Output $/Mtok$0.1625$0.56
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemma 3 12B better than Llama 3.1 70B Instruct for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemma 3 12B for output tokens 3.4x cheaper ($0.1625 vs $0.56 per million) and work measured by LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) or Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 3 12B or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?

Gemma 3 12B costs $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.1625 per million output tokens; Llama 3.1 70B Instruct costs $0.56 and $0.56. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 3 12B or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?

Neither: both take 131K tokens.

How many benchmarks is the Gemma 3 12B vs Llama 3.1 70B Instruct comparison based on?

37 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Gemma 3 12B's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next