Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-5.1-Codex vs Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2

Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2 costs 11.8x less per output token than GPT-5.1-Codex ($0.85 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.

GPT-5.1-CodexOpenAI
Coding
15.3
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$10.00
S Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2Sao10K
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.85
vs $10.00 vs $0.85 per 1M output tokens. Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2 is 11.8x cheaper.

GPT-5.1-Codex or Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2: which to pick

Only GPT-5.1-Codex has a coding score, 15.3 on the Vibe Coding Index; Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2 for output tokens 11.8x cheaper ($0.85 vs $10.00 per million).

No benchmark has tested both yet. GPT-5.1-Codex has results on SWE-bench Verified, LMArena WebDev and LiveCodeBench (Vals AI); Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2 has none yet. Compare them on price and context instead.

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-5.1-Codex 15.3 from 2 benchmarks, Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2 not benchmarked.
Widest category
None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
Widest single gap
None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
Output price
GPT-5.1-Codex $10.00 against Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2 $0.85 per million output tokens, 11.8x apart.
Context window
GPT-5.1-Codex takes 400K tokens, Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2 131K.

Benchmark by benchmark

Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.

CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index9 boards measured
Coding benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex and Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexLlama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2Leader
SWE-bench Verified66.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
LMArena WebDev1337Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)85.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)13.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)84.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)34.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Terminal-Bench57.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
ALE-Bench1244.9Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1346Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 30 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex and Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexLlama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2Leader
AA Intelligence Index23.7Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards measured
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex and Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexLlama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2Leader
Design Arena: agents building web apps1018Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps1086Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1191Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
τ²-Bench Telecom83.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex and Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexLlama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2Leader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)86.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)25.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
Math benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex and Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexLlama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2Leader
AA Math Index95.7Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)95.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex and Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexLlama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2Leader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)86.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards measured
Web design benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex and Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexLlama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2Leader
Design Arena: websites1161Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Design Arena: UI components1234Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Design Arena: game dev1137Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Design Arena: data viz1213Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Design Arena: all code categories1152Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
General benchmarks for GPT-5.1-Codex and Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2
BenchmarkGPT-5.1-CodexLlama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2Leader
IFBench70.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)69.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.1-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 44 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-5.1-Codex$0.0063Fits in one request
Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2$0.0013Fits in one request

Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-5.1-Codex$0.092Fits in one request
Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2$0.045Fits in one request

Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-5.1-Codex$0.350Fits in one request
Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2$0.178Exceeds the context window

Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2 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-5.1-Codex and Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-5.1-CodexSao10K Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2
MakerOpenAISao10K
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedNovember 13, 2025August 28, 2024
Context window400K131K
Input $/Mtok$1.25$0.85
Output $/Mtok$10.00$0.85
Coding index15.3Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it20
Cost per solved task$0.892Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-5.1-Codex better than Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2 for coding?

Only GPT-5.1-Codex has a coding score, 15.3 on the Vibe Coding Index; Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2 for output tokens 11.8x cheaper ($0.85 vs $10.00 per million).

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.1-Codex or Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2?

GPT-5.1-Codex costs $1.25 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2 costs $0.85 and $0.85. Cost per solved task is known for GPT-5.1-Codex only.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-5.1-Codex or Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2?

GPT-5.1-Codex, with 400K tokens against 131K.

Has any benchmark tested both GPT-5.1-Codex and Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2?

No benchmark has tested both yet. GPT-5.1-Codex has results on SWE-bench Verified, LMArena WebDev and LiveCodeBench (Vals AI); Llama 3.1 Euryale 70B v2.2 has none yet. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 22, 2026.

Compare next