Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct leads Llama 3.1 70B Instruct on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 7.7 to 6.6, and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct costs 1.3x less per output token ($0.56 vs $0.72 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 46 benchmarks have a result for both.

Llama 3.1 70B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
24.3
Output $/M
$0.56
3
Llama 3.3 70B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
26.0
Output $/M
$0.72
42
vs boards won of 46 shared, 1 tied

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct 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 Llama 3.1 70B Instruct for output tokens 1.3x cheaper ($0.56 vs $0.72 per million) and work measured by LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) or WeirdML, where it leads.

Shared results
46
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct only
1
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct only
6
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
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct not benchmarked, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 8.2 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
IFBench: Llama 3.1 70B Instruct 34.4% against Llama 3.3 70B Instruct 47.1%, 12.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct $0.56 against Llama 3.3 70B Instruct $0.72 per million output tokens, 1.3x 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
CategoryLlama 3.1 70B InstructBarsLlama 3.3 70B InstructTies
Coding041 tie
Intelligence02
Agentic work11
Reasoning15
Math06
Knowledge06
General118
All shared boards3421 tie
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index04
Coding benchmarks for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructLlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
AA Coding IndexNot measured11.9Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)23.2%28.8%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)3.0%3.0%Tie
WeirdML9.0%14.4%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: coding12601268Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: software and IT12601273Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Intelligence benchmarks for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructLlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index6.67.7Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Epoch Capabilities Index125.9127.3Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
Agentic work benchmarks for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructLlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom15.2%26.6%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BALROG27.9%23.0%Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
TheAgentCompany6.9%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)Not measured31.9%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index15
Reasoning benchmarks for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructLlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)40.9%49.8%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)4.5%3.6%Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)44.2%47.4%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
SimpleBenchNot measured19.9%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts12411257Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: expert12091225Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English12611277Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
Math benchmarks for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructLlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
AA Math Index4.07.7Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)4.0%7.7%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME3.6%5.1%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
MATH level 536.7%41.6%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: math12521267Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: mathematical work12531267Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index06
Knowledge benchmarks for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructLlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)67.6%71.3%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
MMLU80.1%86.3%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: science12761284Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare12571275Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: legal and government12831284Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: business and finance12351243Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
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 Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructLlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index118
General benchmarks for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructLlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
IFBench34.4%47.1%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured15.7%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
DTBench60.0%59.5%Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
LMCA14.8%17.5%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Fiction.LiveBenchNot measured33.3%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text12611274Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: instruction following12311242Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: creative writing12321250Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: English12941303Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: non-English12191236Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: Chinese12151217Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: German12221251Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: Japanese11321150Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: Korean11401142Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: French12621282Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: Spanish12531269Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: Russian12341252Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1259Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn12561280Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: longer queries12411255Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: writing and language12361255Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12301241Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructLlama 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

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct$0.0008Fits 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

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct$0.030Fits 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

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct$0.118Exceeds 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 Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
SpecificationMeta Llama 3.1 70B InstructMeta Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
MakerMeta LlamaMeta Llama
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedJuly 23, 2024December 6, 2024
Context window131K131K
Input $/Mtok$0.56$0.45
Output $/Mtok$0.56$0.72
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Llama 3.1 70B Instruct 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 Llama 3.1 70B Instruct for output tokens 1.3x cheaper ($0.56 vs $0.72 per million) and work measured by LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) or WeirdML, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct or Llama 3.3 70B Instruct?

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct costs $0.56 per million input tokens and $0.56 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, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct or Llama 3.3 70B Instruct?

Neither: both take 131K tokens.

How many benchmarks is the Llama 3.1 70B Instruct vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct comparison based on?

46 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Llama 3.1 70B Instruct'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