Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct vs Solar Pro 3

Solar Pro 3 leads Llama 3.1 70B Instruct on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 7.8 to 6.6, at about the same output price ($0.60 vs $0.56 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 6 benchmarks have a result for both.

Llama 3.1 70B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
24.3
Output $/M
$0.56
0
Solar Pro 3Upstage
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.60
6
vs boards won of 6 shared

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct or Solar Pro 3: 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 1.1x cheaper ($0.56 vs $0.60 per million) and work measured by Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Shared results
6
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct only
41
Solar Pro 3 only
4
Like-for-like categories
5 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, Solar Pro 3 not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 71.1 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: Llama 3.1 70B Instruct 15.2% against Solar Pro 3 86.3%, 71.1 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct $0.56 against Solar Pro 3 $0.60 per million output tokens, 1.1x 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 InstructBarsSolar Pro 3Ties
Coding01
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning02
General01
All shared boards06
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
Coding benchmarks for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Solar Pro 3
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructSolar Pro 3Leader
AA Coding IndexNot measured16.2Only Solar Pro 3 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)23.2%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
SciCodeNot measured25.5%Only Solar Pro 3 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)3.0%7.6%Solar Pro 3
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 32 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Solar Pro 3
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructSolar Pro 3Leader
AA Intelligence Index6.67.8Solar Pro 3
Epoch Capabilities Index125.9Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Solar Pro 3
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructSolar Pro 3Leader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured1.4Only Solar Pro 3 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom15.2%86.3%Solar Pro 3
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 37 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Reasoning benchmarks for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Solar Pro 3
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructSolar Pro 3Leader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)40.9%72.4%Solar Pro 3
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)4.5%10.3%Solar Pro 3
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)44.2%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
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
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Solar Pro 3
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructSolar Pro 3Leader
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%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
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 Solar Pro 3
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructSolar Pro 3Leader
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 Solar Pro 3
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructSolar Pro 3Leader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
General benchmarks for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Solar Pro 3
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructSolar Pro 3Leader
IFBench34.4%71.2%Solar Pro 3
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured32.3%Only Solar Pro 3 measured
DTBench60.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct measured
LMCA14.8%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 70B Instruct 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 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 Solar Pro 3
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructSolar Pro 3Leader
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
Solar Pro 3$0.0004Fits in one request

Solar Pro 3 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct$0.030Fits in one request
Solar Pro 3$0.0093Fits in one request

Solar Pro 3 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct$0.118Exceeds the context window
Solar Pro 3$0.036Exceeds the context window

Solar Pro 3 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 Solar Pro 3
SpecificationMeta Llama 3.1 70B InstructUpstage Solar Pro 3
MakerMeta LlamaUpstage
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedJuly 23, 2024January 27, 2026
Context window131K131K
Input $/Mtok$0.56$0.15
Output $/Mtok$0.56$0.60
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 Solar Pro 3 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 1.1x cheaper ($0.56 vs $0.60 per million) and 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 Solar Pro 3?

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct costs $0.56 per million input tokens and $0.56 per million output tokens; Solar Pro 3 costs $0.15 and $0.60. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct or Solar Pro 3?

Neither: both take 131K tokens.

How many benchmarks is the Llama 3.1 70B Instruct vs Solar Pro 3 comparison based on?

6 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 Solar Pro 3's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next