Model Comparison
Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Oct '24)
vs. Llama 3.3 Instruct 70B
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Anthropic, Meta
Recommended Pick
An Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Oct '24) 9 metric wins Strongest on: TTFT, Latency, Reasoning
Best Value
Llama 3.3 Instruct 70B
100.0 value score
27.3 reasoning / $0.61/1M
Lowest Price
Llama 3.3 Instruct 70B
$0.58/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Oct '24)
34.5 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Oct '24)
30.2 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Llama 3.3 Instruct 70B has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Llama 3.3 Instruct 70B is 6.5x cheaper on input tokens than Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Oct '24).
Reasoning gap
Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Oct '24) leads Llama 3.3 Instruct 70B by 7.2 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Oct '24) leads Llama 3.3 Instruct 70B by 19.5 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Oct '24) wins 9 measurable categories, including TTFT, Latency, Reasoning, Intelligence.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Oct '24)
Anthropic
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Llama 3.3 Instruct 70B
Meta
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick An Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Oct '24) | Me Llama 3.3 Instruct 70B |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $3.75/1M | $0.58/1M |
| Output Cost | $15.00/1M | $0.71/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $6.56/1M | $0.61/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Anthropic | Meta |
| Release Date | Oct 22, 2024 | Dec 6, 2024 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 92.1 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 661ms |
| Latency | — | 661ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 11.8 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 34.5 | 27.3 |
| Intelligence | 15.9 | 14.5 |
| Coding | 30.2 | 10.7 |
| Math | — | 7.7 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 59.9% | 49.8% |
| MMLU Pro | 77.2% | 71.3% |
| HLE | 3.9% | 4.0% |
| LiveCodeBench | 38.1% | 28.8% |
| MATH 500 | 77.1% | 77.3% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 7.7% |
| AIME (Original) | 15.7% | 30.0% |
| SciCode | 36.6% | 26.0% |
| LCR | — | 15.0% |
| IFBench | — | 47.1% |
| TAU-bench v2 | — | 26.6% |
| TerminalBench Hard | — | 3.0% |
Key Takeaways
Llama 3.3 Instruct 70B offers the best value at $0.58/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Oct '24) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 34.5 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Oct '24) reaches a 30.2 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Oct '24)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Llama 3.3 Instruct 70B
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
