Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-5.3-Codex vs Llama 3.1 70B Instruct

Updated October 21, 2026. 8 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

GPT-5.3-CodexOpenAI
Coding
60.0
Overall
32.5
Output $/M
$14.00
8
Llama 3.1 70B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
6.6
Output $/M
$0.56
0
vs boards won of 8 shared

Decision reading

Only GPT-5.3-Codex has a coding score, 60.0 on the Vibe Coding Index; Llama 3.1 70B Instruct has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct has the edge where output tokens cost 25.0x less.

Shared results
8
GPT-5.3-Codex only
26
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct only
39
Like-for-like categories
5 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

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-5.3-Codex 60.0 from 3 benchmarks, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 70.8 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: GPT-5.3-Codex 86.0% against Llama 3.1 70B Instruct 15.2%, 70.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-5.3-Codex $14.00 against Llama 3.1 70B Instruct $0.56 per million output tokens, 25.0x apart.
Context window
GPT-5.3-Codex takes 400K 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
CategoryGPT-5.3-CodexBarsLlama 3.1 70B InstructTies
Coding20
Intelligence20
Agentic work10
Reasoning20
General10
All shared boards80
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index20
Coding benchmarks for GPT-5.3-Codex and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-5.3-CodexLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
LMArena WebDev1407Not measuredOnly GPT-5.3-Codex measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)87.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.3-Codex measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)78.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.3-Codex measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)61.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.3-Codex measured
IOI (Vals AI)53.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.3-Codex measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured23.2%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)53.0%3.0%GPT-5.3-Codex
Terminal-Bench78.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.3-Codex measured
WeirdML79.3%9.0%GPT-5.3-Codex
ALE-Bench1655.2Not measuredOnly GPT-5.3-Codex measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1260Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1260Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena WebDev: React1395Not measuredOnly GPT-5.3-Codex measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1422Not measuredOnly GPT-5.3-Codex measured
LMArena WebDev: from an image1443Not measuredOnly GPT-5.3-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-5.3-Codex and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-5.3-CodexLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index32.56.6GPT-5.3-Codex
Epoch Capabilities Index157.1125.9GPT-5.3-Codex
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-5.3-Codex and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-5.3-CodexLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
Design Arena: agents building web apps1032Not measuredOnly GPT-5.3-Codex measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps983Not measuredOnly GPT-5.3-Codex measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1053Not measuredOnly GPT-5.3-Codex measured
Design Arena: agents building Android apps1084Not measuredOnly GPT-5.3-Codex measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot games1124Not measuredOnly GPT-5.3-Codex measured
τ²-Bench Telecom86.0%15.2%GPT-5.3-Codex
METR time horizons74.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.3-Codex measured
BALROGNot measured27.9%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
TheAgentCompanyNot measured6.9%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
Vending-Bench 2$5,940Not measuredOnly GPT-5.3-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-5.3-Codex and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-5.3-CodexLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)91.5%40.9%GPT-5.3-Codex
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)42.5%4.5%GPT-5.3-Codex
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured44.2%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1241Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1209Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1261Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GPT-5.3-Codex and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-5.3-CodexLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
AA Math IndexNot measured4.0Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured4.0%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
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: mathNot measured1252Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1253Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-5.3-Codex and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-5.3-CodexLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured67.6%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
MMLUNot measured80.1%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1276Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1257Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1283Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1235Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GPT-5.3-Codex and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-5.3-CodexLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
Design Arena: websites1163Not measuredOnly GPT-5.3-Codex measured
Design Arena: UI components1137Not measuredOnly GPT-5.3-Codex measured
Design Arena: game dev1161Not measuredOnly GPT-5.3-Codex measured
Design Arena: data viz1163Not measuredOnly GPT-5.3-Codex measured
Design Arena: 3D1008Not measuredOnly GPT-5.3-Codex measured
Design Arena: all code categories1145Not measuredOnly GPT-5.3-Codex measured
Design Arena: SVG1129Not measuredOnly GPT-5.3-Codex measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1151Not measuredOnly GPT-5.3-Codex measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
General benchmarks for GPT-5.3-Codex and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-5.3-CodexLlama 3.1 70B InstructLeader
IFBench75.4%34.4%GPT-5.3-Codex
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)83.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.3-Codex measured
DTBenchNot measured60.0%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMCANot measured14.8%Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena TextNot measured1261Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1231Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1232Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1294Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1219Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1215Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
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: SpanishNot measured1253Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1234Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1256Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1241Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1236Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1230Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
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 GPT-5.3-Codex and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-5.3-CodexLlama 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

GPT-5.3-Codex$0.0088Fits 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

GPT-5.3-Codex$0.130Fits 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

GPT-5.3-Codex$0.490Fits in one request
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 GPT-5.3-Codex and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-5.3-CodexMeta Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
MakerOpenAIMeta Llama
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedFebruary 24, 2026July 23, 2024
Context window400K131K
Input $/Mtok$1.75$0.56
Output $/Mtok$14.00$0.56
Coding index60.0Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it30
Cost per solved task$0.59Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-5.3-Codex better than Llama 3.1 70B Instruct for coding?

Only GPT-5.3-Codex has a coding score, 60.0 on the Vibe Coding Index; Llama 3.1 70B Instruct has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Llama 3.1 70B Instruct has the edge where output tokens cost 25.0x less.

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.3-Codex or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?

GPT-5.3-Codex costs $1.75 per million input tokens and $14.00 per million output tokens; Llama 3.1 70B Instruct costs $0.56 and $0.56. Cost per solved task is known for GPT-5.3-Codex only.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-5.3-Codex or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?

GPT-5.3-Codex, with 400K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-5.3-Codex vs Llama 3.1 70B Instruct comparison based on?

8 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-5.3-Codex's coding index rests on 3 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