Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct vs Qwen3 14B

Qwen3 14B leads Llama 3.1 70B Instruct on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 6.7 to 6.6, and Qwen3 14B costs 2.4x less per output token ($0.23 vs $0.56 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 15 benchmarks have a result for both.

Llama 3.1 70B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
24.3
Output $/M
$0.56
0
Qwen3 14BQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.23
14
vs boards won of 15 shared, 1 tied

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct or Qwen3 14B: 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 a larger context window (131K against 41K tokens) and work measured by LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) or Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Shared results
15
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct only
32
Qwen3 14B only
5
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, Qwen3 14B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Math, 56.9 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
OTIS Mock AIME: Llama 3.1 70B Instruct 3.6% against Qwen3 14B 66.4%, 62.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct $0.56 against Qwen3 14B $0.23 per million output tokens, 2.4x apart.
Context window
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct takes 131K tokens, Qwen3 14B 41K.

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 InstructBarsQwen3 14BTies
Coding02
Intelligence02
Agentic work01
Reasoning021 tie
Math03
Knowledge01
General03
All shared boards0141 tie
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
Coding benchmarks for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Qwen3 14B
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructQwen3 14BLeader
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)23.2%52.3%Qwen3 14B
SciCodeNot measured30.7%Only Qwen3 14B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)3.0%5.3%Qwen3 14B
WeirdML9.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: coding1260Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1260Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
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 Qwen3 14B
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructQwen3 14BLeader
AA Intelligence Index6.66.7Qwen3 14B
Epoch Capabilities Index125.9138.2Qwen3 14B
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Qwen3 14B
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructQwen3 14BLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom15.2%34.5%Qwen3 14B
BALROG27.9%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
TheAgentCompany6.9%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)Not measured41.0%Only Qwen3 14B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Reasoning benchmarks for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Qwen3 14B
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructQwen3 14BLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)40.9%60.4%Qwen3 14B
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)4.5%4.5%Tie
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)44.2%63.8%Qwen3 14B
LMArena Text: hard prompts1241Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: expert1209Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1261Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
Kagi LLM BenchmarkNot measured49.1%Only Qwen3 14B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
Math benchmarks for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Qwen3 14B
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructQwen3 14BLeader
AA Math Index4.058.0Qwen3 14B
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)4.0%58.0%Qwen3 14B
OTIS Mock AIME3.6%66.4%Qwen3 14B
MATH level 536.7%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: math1252Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1253Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Knowledge benchmarks for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Qwen3 14B
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructQwen3 14BLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)67.6%77.4%Qwen3 14B
MMLU80.1%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: science1276Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1257Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1283Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1235Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
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 Qwen3 14B
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructQwen3 14BLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
General benchmarks for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Qwen3 14B
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructQwen3 14BLeader
IFBench34.4%40.5%Qwen3 14B
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured0.0%Only Qwen3 14B measured
DTBench60.0%64.0%Qwen3 14B
LMCA14.8%18.2%Qwen3 14B
Fiction.LiveBenchNot measured62.5%Only Qwen3 14B measured
LMArena Text1261Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1231Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1232Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: English1294Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: non-English1219Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1215Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: German1222Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1132Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Korean1140Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: French1262Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1253Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Russian1234Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1256Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1241Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1236Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1230Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 25 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 Qwen3 14B
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructQwen3 14BLeader
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
Qwen3 14B$0.0002Fits in one request

Qwen3 14B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct$0.030Fits in one request
Qwen3 14B$0.0062Exceeds the context window

Qwen3 14B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct$0.118Exceeds the context window
Qwen3 14B$0.024Exceeds the context window

Qwen3 14B 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 Qwen3 14B
SpecificationMeta Llama 3.1 70B InstructQwen3 14B
MakerMeta LlamaQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedJuly 23, 2024April 28, 2025
Context window131K41K
Input $/Mtok$0.56$0.11
Output $/Mtok$0.56$0.23
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 Qwen3 14B for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Llama 3.1 70B Instruct for a larger context window (131K against 41K tokens) and work measured by LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) or Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct or Qwen3 14B?

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct costs $0.56 per million input tokens and $0.56 per million output tokens; Qwen3 14B costs $0.11 and $0.23. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct or Qwen3 14B?

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct, with 131K tokens against 41K.

How many benchmarks is the Llama 3.1 70B Instruct vs Qwen3 14B comparison based on?

15 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 Qwen3 14B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next