Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct vs Qwen3.5-9B

Qwen3.5-9B leads Llama 3.1 70B Instruct on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 13.3 to 6.6, and Qwen3.5-9B costs 3.7x less per output token ($0.15 vs $0.56 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 11 benchmarks have a result for both.

Llama 3.1 70B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
24.3
Output $/M
$0.56
0
Qwen3.5-9BQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.15
11
vs boards won of 11 shared

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct or Qwen3.5-9B: 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 work measured by Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Shared results
11
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct only
36
Qwen3.5-9B only
4
Like-for-like categories
6 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, Qwen3.5-9B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 71.6 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: Llama 3.1 70B Instruct 15.2% against Qwen3.5-9B 86.8%, 71.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct $0.56 against Qwen3.5-9B $0.15 per million output tokens, 3.7x apart.
Context window
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct takes 131K tokens, Qwen3.5-9B 262K.

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 InstructBarsQwen3.5-9BTies
Coding01
Intelligence02
Agentic work01
Reasoning03
Math01
General03
All shared boards011
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
Coding benchmarks for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Qwen3.5-9B
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructQwen3.5-9BLeader
AA Coding IndexNot measured23.5Only Qwen3.5-9B measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)23.2%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
SciCodeNot measured29.5%Only Qwen3.5-9B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)3.0%24.2%Qwen3.5-9B
Terminal-BenchNot measured9.2%Only Qwen3.5-9B measured
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 31 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Intelligence benchmarks for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Qwen3.5-9B
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructQwen3.5-9BLeader
AA Intelligence Index6.613.3Qwen3.5-9B
Epoch Capabilities Index125.9139.3Qwen3.5-9B
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Qwen3.5-9B
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructQwen3.5-9BLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom15.2%86.8%Qwen3.5-9B
BALROG27.9%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
TheAgentCompany6.9%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 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 index03
Reasoning benchmarks for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Qwen3.5-9B
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructQwen3.5-9BLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)40.9%80.6%Qwen3.5-9B
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)4.5%14.9%Qwen3.5-9B
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)44.2%79.0%Qwen3.5-9B
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
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Math benchmarks for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Qwen3.5-9B
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructQwen3.5-9BLeader
AA Math Index4.0Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)4.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
OTIS Mock AIME3.6%61.7%Qwen3.5-9B
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
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Qwen3.5-9B
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructQwen3.5-9BLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)67.6%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
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 Qwen3.5-9B
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructQwen3.5-9BLeader
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 Qwen3.5-9B
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructQwen3.5-9BLeader
IFBench34.4%66.7%Qwen3.5-9B
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured70.0%Only Qwen3.5-9B measured
DTBench60.0%71.2%Qwen3.5-9B
LMCA14.8%24.5%Qwen3.5-9B
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 26 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 Qwen3.5-9B
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructQwen3.5-9BLeader
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
Qwen3.5-9B$0.0002Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-9B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct$0.030Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-9B$0.0054Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-9B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct$0.118Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.5-9B$0.021Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-9B 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 Qwen3.5-9B
SpecificationMeta Llama 3.1 70B InstructQwen3.5-9B
MakerMeta LlamaQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedJuly 23, 2024March 10, 2026
Context window131K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.56$0.10
Output $/Mtok$0.56$0.15
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 Qwen3.5-9B for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Llama 3.1 70B Instruct for work measured by Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct or Qwen3.5-9B?

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct costs $0.56 per million input tokens and $0.56 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5-9B costs $0.10 and $0.15. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct or Qwen3.5-9B?

Qwen3.5-9B, with 262K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the Llama 3.1 70B Instruct vs Qwen3.5-9B comparison based on?

11 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 Qwen3.5-9B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next