Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Qwen3.5-27B

Qwen3.5-27B leads Llama 3.3 70B Instruct on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 22.9 to 7.7, and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct costs 2.2x less per output token ($0.72 vs $1.56 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 38 benchmarks have a result for both.

Llama 3.3 70B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
26.0
Output $/M
$0.72
0
Qwen3.5-27BQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.56
38
vs boards won of 38 shared

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct or Qwen3.5-27B: which to pick

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

Pick Llama 3.3 70B Instruct for output tokens 2.2x cheaper ($0.72 vs $1.56 per million) and work measured by Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or WeirdML, where it leads.

Shared results
38
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct only
14
Qwen3.5-27B only
15
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 3.3 70B Instruct not benchmarked, Qwen3.5-27B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Agentic work, 67.3 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: Llama 3.3 70B Instruct 26.6% against Qwen3.5-27B 93.9%, 67.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct $0.72 against Qwen3.5-27B $1.56 per million output tokens, 2.2x apart.
Context window
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct takes 131K tokens, Qwen3.5-27B 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 3.3 70B InstructBarsQwen3.5-27BTies
Coding04
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning05
Math02
Knowledge04
General021
All shared boards038
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index04
Coding benchmarks for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and Qwen3.5-27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.3 70B InstructQwen3.5-27BLeader
LMArena WebDevNot measured1358Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
AA Coding Index11.9Not measuredOnly Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)28.8%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)3.0%32.6%Qwen3.5-27B
WeirdML14.4%39.5%Qwen3.5-27B
ALE-BenchNot measured349.4Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Text: coding12681427Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: software and IT12731431Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1346Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1386Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and Qwen3.5-27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.3 70B InstructQwen3.5-27BLeader
AA Intelligence Index7.722.9Qwen3.5-27B
Epoch Capabilities Index127.3Not measuredOnly Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and Qwen3.5-27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.3 70B InstructQwen3.5-27BLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom26.6%93.9%Qwen3.5-27B
BALROG23.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$202Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)31.9%Not measuredOnly 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 index05
Reasoning benchmarks for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and Qwen3.5-27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.3 70B InstructQwen3.5-27BLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)49.8%85.8%Qwen3.5-27B
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)3.6%23.9%Qwen3.5-27B
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)47.4%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
SimpleBench19.9%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts12571415Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: expert12251427Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English12771429Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1249Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1256Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Math benchmarks for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and Qwen3.5-27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.3 70B InstructQwen3.5-27BLeader
AA Math Index7.7Not measuredOnly Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)7.7%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
OTIS Mock AIME5.1%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
MATH level 541.6%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: math12671429Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: mathematical work12671429Qwen3.5-27B
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Knowledge benchmarks for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and Qwen3.5-27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.3 70B InstructQwen3.5-27BLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)71.3%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
MMLU86.3%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: science12841437Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare12751425Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: legal and government12841405Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: business and finance12431399Qwen3.5-27B
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 3.3 70B Instruct and Qwen3.5-27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.3 70B InstructQwen3.5-27BLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index021
General benchmarks for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and Qwen3.5-27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.3 70B InstructQwen3.5-27BLeader
IFBench47.1%75.6%Qwen3.5-27B
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)15.7%77.7%Qwen3.5-27B
DTBench59.5%82.4%Qwen3.5-27B
LMCA17.5%34.0%Qwen3.5-27B
Fiction.LiveBench33.3%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text12741409Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: instruction following12421393Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: creative writing12501362Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena VisionNot measured1241Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Text: English13031425Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: non-English12361390Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: Chinese12171478Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: German12511392Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: Japanese11501346Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: Korean11421359Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: French12821410Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: Spanish12691407Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: Russian12521390Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: Polish12591375Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: multi-turn12801410Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: longer queries12551413Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: writing and language12551380Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12411363Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1246Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1301Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1246Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1227Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Vision: captioningNot measured1170Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing thingsNot measured1210Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1224Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and Qwen3.5-27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.3 70B InstructQwen3.5-27BLeader
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 3.3 70B Instruct$0.0008Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-27B$0.0010Fits in one request

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct$0.025Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-27B$0.014Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-27B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct$0.097Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.5-27B$0.055Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-27B 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 3.3 70B Instruct and Qwen3.5-27B
SpecificationMeta Llama 3.3 70B InstructQwen3.5-27B
MakerMeta LlamaQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedDecember 6, 2024February 25, 2026
Context window131K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.45$0.195
Output $/Mtok$0.72$1.56
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it01
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Llama 3.3 70B Instruct better than Qwen3.5-27B for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Llama 3.3 70B Instruct for output tokens 2.2x cheaper ($0.72 vs $1.56 per million) and work measured by Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or WeirdML, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct or Qwen3.5-27B?

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct costs $0.45 per million input tokens and $0.72 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5-27B costs $0.195 and $1.56. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct or Qwen3.5-27B?

Qwen3.5-27B, with 262K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Qwen3.5-27B comparison based on?

38 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Llama 3.3 70B Instruct's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.5-27B's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next