Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-4o (2024-05-13) vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct leads GPT-4o (2024-05-13) on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 7.7 to 7.3, and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct costs 20.8x less per output token ($0.72 vs $15.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 39 benchmarks have a result for both.

GPT-4o (2024-05-13)OpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
27.1
Output $/M
$15.00
36
Llama 3.3 70B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
26.0
Output $/M
$0.72
3
vs boards won of 39 shared

GPT-4o (2024-05-13) or Llama 3.3 70B Instruct: which to pick

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

Pick GPT-4o (2024-05-13) for work measured by AA Intelligence Index or Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Shared results
39
GPT-4o (2024-05-13) only
5
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct only
13
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
GPT-4o (2024-05-13) not benchmarked, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 9.3 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
LMArena Text: Japanese: GPT-4o (2024-05-13) 1257 against Llama 3.3 70B Instruct 1150, 17.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-4o (2024-05-13) $15.00 against Llama 3.3 70B Instruct $0.72 per million output tokens, 20.8x apart.
Context window
GPT-4o (2024-05-13) takes 128K tokens, Llama 3.3 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
CategoryGPT-4o (2024-05-13)BarsLlama 3.3 70B InstructTies
Coding40
Intelligence01
Agentic work10
Reasoning51
Math40
Knowledge51
General170
All shared boards363
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index40
Coding benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-05-13) and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-05-13)Llama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
AA Coding Index24.211.9GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)33.4%28.8%GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured3.0%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
WeirdMLNot measured14.4%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: coding12971268GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: software and IT12971273GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-05-13) and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-05-13)Llama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index7.37.7Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured127.3Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-05-13) and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-05-13)Llama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured26.6%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
METR time horizons40.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-05-13) measured
BALROG32.3%23.0%GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)Not measured31.9%Only Llama 3.3 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 index51
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-05-13) and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-05-13)Llama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond50.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-05-13) measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)52.6%49.8%GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)1.8%3.6%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)48.9%47.4%GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
SimpleBenchNot measured19.9%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts12811257GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: expert12501225GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English12931277GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
Math benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-05-13) and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-05-13)Llama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
AA Math IndexNot measured7.7Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured7.7%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
OTIS Mock AIME6.3%5.1%GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
MATH level 551.0%41.6%GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: math12841267GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: mathematical work12841267GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index51
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-05-13) and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-05-13)Llama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)74.0%71.3%GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
MMLU84.2%86.3%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: science12951284GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare12781275GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: legal and government13141284GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: business and finance12621243GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-05-13) and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-05-13)Llama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index170
General benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-05-13) and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-05-13)Llama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
IFBenchNot measured47.1%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured15.7%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
DTBenchNot measured59.5%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMCANot measured17.5%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
Fiction.LiveBenchNot measured33.3%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text13001274GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: instruction following12781242GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: creative writing12911250GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Vision1137Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-05-13) measured
LMArena Text: English13121303GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: non-English12831236GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: Chinese12771217GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: German12831251GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: Japanese12571150GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: Korean12341142GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: French13041282GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: Spanish12921269GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: Russian12851252GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: Polish13651259GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: multi-turn13021280GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: longer queries12881255GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: writing and language12981255GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12891241GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Vision: English1147Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-05-13) measured
LMArena Vision: Chinese1132Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-05-13) measured
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-05-13) and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-05-13)Llama 3.3 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

GPT-4o (2024-05-13)$0.013Fits in one request
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct$0.0008Fits in one request

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-4o (2024-05-13)$0.295Fits in one request
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct$0.025Fits in one request

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-4o (2024-05-13)$1.15Exceeds the context window
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct$0.097Exceeds the context window

Llama 3.3 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 GPT-4o (2024-05-13) and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-4o (2024-05-13)Meta Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
MakerOpenAIMeta Llama
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedMay 13, 2024December 6, 2024
Context window128K131K
Input $/Mtok$5.00$0.45
Output $/Mtok$15.00$0.72
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-4o (2024-05-13) better than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GPT-4o (2024-05-13) for work measured by AA Intelligence Index or Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GPT-4o (2024-05-13) or Llama 3.3 70B Instruct?

GPT-4o (2024-05-13) costs $5.00 per million input tokens and $15.00 per million output tokens; Llama 3.3 70B Instruct costs $0.45 and $0.72. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-4o (2024-05-13) or Llama 3.3 70B Instruct?

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct, with 131K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-4o (2024-05-13) vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct comparison based on?

39 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GPT-4o (2024-05-13)'s coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next