Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27B

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct costs 6.3x less per output token than Ternary Bonsai 2 27B ($0.08 vs $0.50 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.

Llama 3.1 8B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
17.9
Output $/M
$0.08
P Ternary Bonsai 2 27BPrism-ml
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.50
vs $0.08 vs $0.50 per 1M output tokens. Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is 6.3x cheaper.

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct or Ternary Bonsai 2 27B: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Llama 3.1 8B Instruct for output tokens 6.3x cheaper ($0.08 vs $0.50 per million).

No benchmark has tested both yet. Llama 3.1 8B Instruct has results on AA Coding Index, LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) and Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run); Ternary Bonsai 2 27B has none yet. Compare them on price and context instead.

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 8B Instruct not benchmarked, Ternary Bonsai 2 27B not benchmarked.
Widest category
None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
Widest single gap
None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
Output price
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct $0.08 against Ternary Bonsai 2 27B $0.50 per million output tokens, 6.3x apart.
Context window
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct takes 131K tokens, Ternary Bonsai 2 27B 262K.

Benchmark by benchmark

Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.

CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index6 boards measured
Coding benchmarks for Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 8B InstructTernary Bonsai 2 27BLeader
AA Coding Index5.4Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)11.6%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)0.8%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
WeirdML1.7%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: coding1195Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1195Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
Intelligence benchmarks for Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 8B InstructTernary Bonsai 2 27BLeader
AA Intelligence Index6.9Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Epoch Capabilities Index116.5Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards measured
Agentic work benchmarks for Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 8B InstructTernary Bonsai 2 27BLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom16.4%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
BALROG15.1%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)25.8%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards measured
Reasoning benchmarks for Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 8B InstructTernary Bonsai 2 27BLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)25.9%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)5.3%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)27.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1175Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: expert1144Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1196Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards measured
Math benchmarks for Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 8B InstructTernary Bonsai 2 27BLeader
AA Math Index4.3Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)4.3%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
OTIS Mock AIME1.7%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
MATH level 522.9%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
GSM8K82.4%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: math1179Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1180Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B 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 measured
Knowledge benchmarks for Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 8B InstructTernary Bonsai 2 27BLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)47.6%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
MMLU56.1%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: science1193Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1182Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1206Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1166Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index21 boards measured
General benchmarks for Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 8B InstructTernary Bonsai 2 27BLeader
IFBench28.6%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)18.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
DTBench50.9%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMCA5.4%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
PIQA81.2%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text1187Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1159Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1154Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: English1218Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: non-English1148Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1151Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: German1144Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1061Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Korean1053Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: French1178Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1169Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Russian1158Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1172Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1181Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1162Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1145Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 27 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 8B Instruct$0.0001Fits in one request
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B$0.0003Fits in one request

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct$0.0027Fits in one request
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B$0.0053Fits in one request

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct$0.011Exceeds the context window
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B$0.020Fits in one request

Llama 3.1 8B 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 8B Instruct and Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
SpecificationMeta Llama 3.1 8B InstructPrismML Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
MakerMeta LlamaPrism-ml
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedJuly 23, 2024September 18, 2026
Context window131K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.05$0.075
Output $/Mtok$0.08$0.50
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Llama 3.1 8B Instruct better than Ternary Bonsai 2 27B for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Llama 3.1 8B Instruct for output tokens 6.3x cheaper ($0.08 vs $0.50 per million).

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct or Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct costs $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.08 per million output tokens; Ternary Bonsai 2 27B costs $0.075 and $0.50. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct or Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?

Ternary Bonsai 2 27B, with 262K tokens against 131K.

Has any benchmark tested both Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?

No benchmark has tested both yet. Llama 3.1 8B Instruct has results on AA Coding Index, LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) and Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run); Ternary Bonsai 2 27B has none yet. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 22, 2026.

Compare next