Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GLM 4.5V vs Llama 3.1 70B Instruct

GLM 4.5V leads Llama 3.1 70B Instruct on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 7.6 to 6.6, and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct costs 3.2x less per output token ($0.56 vs $1.80 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 33 benchmarks have a result for both.

GLM 4.5VZ.ai
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.80
32
Llama 3.1 70B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
24.3
Output $/M
$0.56
1
vs boards won of 33 shared

GLM 4.5V 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 GLM 4.5V for work measured by IFBench, where it leads.

Shared results
33
GLM 4.5V only
8
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct only
14
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
GLM 4.5V not benchmarked, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
Math, 42.2 points apart on average over 4 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
AA Math Index: GLM 4.5V 73.0 against Llama 3.1 70B Instruct 4.0, 69.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GLM 4.5V $1.80 against Llama 3.1 70B Instruct $0.56 per million output tokens, 3.2x apart.
Context window
GLM 4.5V takes 66K tokens, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct 131K.

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
CategoryGLM 4.5VBarsLlama 3.1 70B InstructTies
Coding40
Intelligence10
Agentic work10
Reasoning50
Math40
Knowledge50
General121
All shared boards321
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index40
Coding benchmarks for GLM 4.5V and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.5VLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)60.4%23.2%GLM 4.5V
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)6.8%3.0%GLM 4.5V
WeirdMLNot measured9.0%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: coding13471260GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: software and IT13531260GLM 4.5V
Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for GLM 4.5V and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.5VLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index7.66.6GLM 4.5V
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured125.9Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for GLM 4.5V and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.5VLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom22.5%15.2%GLM 4.5V
BALROGNot measured27.9%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
TheAgentCompanyNot measured6.9%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Reasoning benchmarks for GLM 4.5V and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.5VLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)68.4%40.9%GLM 4.5V
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)6.3%4.5%GLM 4.5V
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured44.2%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13351241GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: expert13531209GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13571261GLM 4.5V
LMArena Vision: diagrams1151Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Vision: homework1163Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark59.8%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
Math benchmarks for GLM 4.5V and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.5VLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
AA Math Index73.04.0GLM 4.5V
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)73.0%4.0%GLM 4.5V
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured3.6%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
MATH level 5Not measured36.7%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: math13541252GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: mathematical work13361253GLM 4.5V
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Knowledge benchmarks for GLM 4.5V and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.5VLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)78.8%67.6%GLM 4.5V
MMLUNot measured80.1%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: science13301276GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13491257GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: legal and government13381283GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: business and finance13091235GLM 4.5V
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 GLM 4.5V and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.5VLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index121
General benchmarks for GLM 4.5V and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.5VLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
IFBench34.2%34.4%Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)0.0%Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
DTBenchNot measured60.0%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMCANot measured14.8%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text13331261GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: instruction following13111231GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: creative writing12941232GLM 4.5V
LMArena Vision1154Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Text: English13621294GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: non-English13031219GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: Chinese13371215GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1222Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
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: Spanish13361253GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: Russian12981234GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: Polish1302Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn13331256GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: longer queries13051241GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: writing and language13021236GLM 4.5V
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13031230GLM 4.5V
LMArena Vision: English1183Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
LMArena Vision: reading text1151Not measuredOnly GLM 4.5V measured
Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GLM 4.5V and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGLM 4.5VLlama 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

GLM 4.5V$0.0015Fits in one request
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct$0.0008Fits in one request

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GLM 4.5V$0.035Fits in one request
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct$0.030Fits in one request

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GLM 4.5V$0.138Exceeds the context window
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct$0.118Exceeds the context window

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct 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 GLM 4.5V and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
SpecificationZ.ai GLM 4.5VMeta Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
MakerZ.aiMeta Llama
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedAugust 11, 2025July 23, 2024
Context window66K131K
Input $/Mtok$0.60$0.56
Output $/Mtok$1.80$0.56
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GLM 4.5V 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 GLM 4.5V for work measured by IFBench, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GLM 4.5V or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?

GLM 4.5V costs $0.60 per million input tokens and $1.80 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, GLM 4.5V or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct, with 131K tokens against 66K.

How many benchmarks is the GLM 4.5V vs Llama 3.1 70B Instruct comparison based on?

33 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GLM 4.5V'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