ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

GPT-4o mini vs Claude Haiku 3 vs Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct

GPT-4o mini comes out ahead, 56 to 47 and 44 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Our pick

    OpenAI

    GPT-4o mini

    Released Jul 18, 2024

    56/100
    • ECI126.6
    • Price$0.15 / $0.60
    • Context128K
  2. Anthropic

    Claude Haiku 3

    Released Mar 13, 2024

    47/100
    • ECI118.4
    • Price$0.25 / $1.25
    • Context200K
  3. Meta

    Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct

    Released Jul 23, 2024

    44/100
    • ECI125.9
    • Price$0.72 / $0.72
    • Context128K
01 — Verdict

GPT-4o mini is our pick

GPT-4o mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 56/100 against Claude Haiku 3 (47) and Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct (44). It leads on price and inputs & features. Claude Haiku 3 wins on context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityGPT-4o miniCapabilities Index (ECI): GPT-4o mini 126.6 · Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct 125.9 · Claude Haiku 3 118.4
  • Lowest priceGPT-4o miniGPT-4o mini $0.263 · Claude Haiku 3 $0.50 · Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct $0.72 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextClaude Haiku 3Claude Haiku 3 200,000 · GPT-4o mini 128,000 · Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct 128,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsGPT-4o mini and Claude Haiku 3GPT-4o mini: Text, Images, PDFs · Claude Haiku 3: Text, Images, PDFs · Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct: Text
  • Self-hostingLlama-3.1-70B-InstructPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGPT-4o miniClaude Haiku 3Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%493848
Price25%776457
Inputs & features15%706025
Context window10%243224
Overall100%56/10047/10044/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

GPT-4o mini vs Claude Haiku 3 vs Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct specifications side by side
SpecificationGPT-4o miniOpenAIClaude Haiku 3AnthropicLlama-3.1-70B-InstructMeta
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)126.6 (best)118.4125.9
ECI rank#135 of 148 (best)#143 of 148#136 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions37.7%36.3%44.2% (best)
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics0.7%——
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics6.9% (best)1.8%3.6%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions8.3%——
Price per million tokens
Input$0.15 (best)$0.25$0.72
Output$0.60 (best)$1.25$0.72
Cached input$0.075——
Blended (3:1)$0.263 (best)$0.50$0.72
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial OpenAI APIMedian of 2 providersMedian of 5 providers
Limits
Context window128,000 tokens200,000 tokens (best)128,000 tokens
Max output16,384 tokens (best)4,096 tokens4,096 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesYesNo
PDFsYesYesNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoNoNoNo
ReasoningNoNoNo
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputYesNoNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryProprietaryOpen
API model IDgpt-4o-mini——
API providers21 (best)25
ReleasedJul 18, 2024Mar 13, 2024Jul 23, 2024
Knowledge cutoffSep 2023Aug 31, 2023Dec 2023
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • GPT-4o mini$2.70
  • Claude Haiku 3$5.00
  • Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct$8.64
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: GPT-4o mini, Claude Haiku 3 or Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct?

GPT-4o mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 56/100 against Claude Haiku 3 (47) and Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct (44). It leads on price and inputs & features. Claude Haiku 3 wins on context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, GPT-4o mini, Claude Haiku 3 or Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct?

GPT-4o mini is cheaper at $0.15 input / $0.60 output per million tokens (official OpenAI API price). Claude Haiku 3 costs $0.25 input / $1.25 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers); Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct costs $0.72 input / $0.72 output per million tokens (median across 5 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.263 per million tokens for GPT-4o mini versus $0.50 for Claude Haiku 3 (1.9× as much) and $0.72 for Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct (2.7× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

GPT-4o mini scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): GPT-4o mini 126.6 (#135 of 148), Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct 125.9 (#136 of 148) and Claude Haiku 3 118.4 (#143 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (120.5–128.5 vs 121.0–128.1), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct 44.2%, GPT-4o mini 37.7%, Claude Haiku 3 36.3%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — GPT-4o mini 6.9%, Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct 3.6%, Claude Haiku 3 1.8%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GPT-4o mini, Claude Haiku 3 and Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, GPT-4o mini leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Haiku 3 has the largest context window at 200,000 tokens, against 128,000 for GPT-4o mini and 128,000 for Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct. Maximum output per response: GPT-4o mini up to 16,384, Claude Haiku 3 up to 4,096, Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct up to 4,096 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

GPT-4o mini accepts text, images and PDFs; Claude Haiku 3 accepts text, images and PDFs; Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct accepts text. GPT-4o mini handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; GPT-4o mini and Claude Haiku 3 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct is the newest, released Jul 23, 2024. GPT-4o mini came out Jul 18, 2024; Claude Haiku 3 came out Mar 13, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: GPT-4o mini Sep 2023, Claude Haiku 3 Aug 31, 2023, Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct Dec 2023.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.