ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Claude Haiku 3.5 vs Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct

Claude Haiku 3.5 comes out ahead, 49 to 40 on our weighted score.

  1. Our pick

    Anthropic

    Claude Haiku 3.5

    Released Oct 22, 2024

    49/100
    • ECI127.2
    • Price—
    • Context200K
    Full specs Remove Claude Haiku 3.5

  2. Meta

    Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct

    Released Jul 23, 2024

    40/100
    • ECI125.9
    • Price$0.72 / $0.72
    • Context128K
    Full specs Remove Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Claude Haiku 3.5 is our pick

Claude Haiku 3.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 49/100 against Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct (40). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 67%, inputs & features 20%, context window 13%.

  • CapabilityClaude Haiku 3.5Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Haiku 3.5 127.2 · Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct 125.9
  • Lowest priceLlama-3.1-70B-InstructLlama-3.1-70B-Instruct $0.72 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Claude Haiku 3.5 unpriced
  • Longest contextClaude Haiku 3.5Claude Haiku 3.5 200,000 · Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct 128,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsClaude Haiku 3.5Claude Haiku 3.5: Text, Images, PDFs · Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct: Text
  • Self-hostingLlama-3.1-70B-InstructPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightClaude Haiku 3.5Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)67%4948
Inputs & features20%6025
Context window13%3224
Overall100%49/10040/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: price. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Claude Haiku 3.5 vs Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct specifications side by side
SpecificationClaude Haiku 3.5AnthropicLlama-3.1-70B-InstructMeta
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)127.2 (best)125.9
ECI rank#134 of 148 (best)#136 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions38.1%44.2% (best)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics4.3% (best)3.6%
Price per million tokens
Input—$0.72
Output—$0.72
Cached input——
Blended (3:1)—$0.72
Long-context rate—Same rate
Price source—Median of 5 providers
Limits
Context window200,000 tokens (best)128,000 tokens
Max output8,192 tokens (best)4,096 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesNo
PDFsYesNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningNoNo
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpen
API model ID——
API providers—5
ReleasedOct 22, 2024Jul 23, 2024
Knowledge cutoffJul 31, 2024Dec 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.

  • Claude Haiku 3.5—
  • Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct$8.64
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Claude Haiku 3.5 or Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct?

Claude Haiku 3.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 49/100 against Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct (40). It leads on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 67%, inputs & features 20%, context window 13%.

Which is cheaper, Claude Haiku 3.5 or Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct?

Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct is cheaper at $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 $0.72 per million tokens for Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct versus . Claude Haiku 3.5 has no published per-token price.

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Claude Haiku 3.5 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Haiku 3.5 127.2 (#134 of 148) and Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct 125.9 (#136 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (120.7–129.7 vs 121.0–128.1), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct 44.2%, Claude Haiku 3.5 38.1%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Claude Haiku 3.5 4.3%, Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct 3.6%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Claude Haiku 3.5 and Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Claude Haiku 3.5 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Haiku 3.5 has the largest context window at 200,000 tokens, against 128,000 for Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct. Maximum output per response: Claude Haiku 3.5 up to 8,192, Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct up to 4,096 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Claude Haiku 3.5 accepts text, images and PDFs; Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct accepts text. Claude Haiku 3.5 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; Claude Haiku 3.5 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Claude Haiku 3.5 is the newest, released Oct 22, 2024. Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct came out Jul 23, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Haiku 3.5 Jul 31, 2024, 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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons