ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct vs Qwen3-Coder 30B-A3B Instruct

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct comes out ahead, 45 to 41 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Our pick

    NVIDIA

    Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

    Released Apr 15, 2025

    45/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.478 / $0.504
    • Context128K
    Full specs Remove Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

  2. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3-Coder 30B-A3B Instruct

    Released Apr 2025

    41/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.45 / $2.25
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3-Coder 30B-A3B Instruct

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct is our pick

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct is the better all-round choice, scoring 45/100 against Qwen3-Coder 30B-A3B Instruct (41). It leads on price. Qwen3-Coder 30B-A3B Instruct wins on context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.

  • CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
  • Lowest priceLlama 3.1 Nemotron 70B InstructLlama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct $0.485 · Qwen3-Coder 30B-A3B Instruct $0.90 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextQwen3-Coder 30B-A3B InstructQwen3-Coder 30B-A3B Instruct 262,144 · Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct 128,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsSame inputsLlama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct: Text · Qwen3-Coder 30B-A3B Instruct: Text
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightLlama 3.1 Nemotron 70B InstructQwen3-Coder 30B-A3B Instruct
Price50%6552
Inputs & features30%2525
Context window20%2437
Overall100%45/10041/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. 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.

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct vs Qwen3-Coder 30B-A3B Instruct specifications side by side
SpecificationLlama 3.1 Nemotron 70B InstructNVIDIAQwen3-Coder 30B-A3B InstructAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)——
ECI rank——
Price per million tokens
Input$0.478$0.45 (best)
Output$0.504 (best)$2.25
Cached input——
Blended (3:1)$0.485 (best)$0.90
Long-context rateSame rateOver 32K: $0.75 / $3.75
Price sourceMedian of 2 providersOfficial Alibaba API
Limits
Context window128,000 tokens262,144 tokens (best)
Max output8,192 tokens65,536 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoNo
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningNoNo
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoNo
Availability
WeightsOpenOpen
API model IDnvidia/llama-3.1-nemotron-70b-instructqwen3-coder-30b-a3b-instruct
API providers313 (best)
ReleasedApr 15, 2025Apr 2025
Knowledge cutoff—Apr 2025
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.

  • Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct$5.79
  • Qwen3-Coder 30B-A3B Instruct$9.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct or Qwen3-Coder 30B-A3B Instruct?

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct is the better all-round choice, scoring 45/100 against Qwen3-Coder 30B-A3B Instruct (41). It leads on price. Qwen3-Coder 30B-A3B Instruct wins on context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct or Qwen3-Coder 30B-A3B Instruct?

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct is cheaper at $0.478 input / $0.504 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers; free on Nvidia). Qwen3-Coder 30B-A3B Instruct costs $0.45 input / $2.25 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.485 per million tokens for Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct versus $0.90 for Qwen3-Coder 30B-A3B Instruct (1.9× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct has not been scored yet and Qwen3-Coder 30B-A3B Instruct has not been scored yet.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct and Qwen3-Coder 30B-A3B Instruct yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3-Coder 30B-A3B Instruct has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 128,000 for Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct. Maximum output per response: Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct up to 8,192, Qwen3-Coder 30B-A3B Instruct up to 65,536 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct accepts text; Qwen3-Coder 30B-A3B Instruct accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.

Are any of these open source?

Yes, both publish their weights, so you can self-host them.

Which is newer?

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct is the newest, released Apr 15, 2025. Qwen3-Coder 30B-A3B Instruct came out Apr 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen3-Coder 30B-A3B Instruct Apr 2025.

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