Qwen Flash vs Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
Qwen Flash comes out ahead, 68 to 45 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen Flash
68/100- ECI—
- Price$0.05 / $0.40
- Context1M
NVIDIALlama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
45/100- ECI—
- Price$0.478 / $0.504
- Context128K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Qwen Flash is our pick
Qwen Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 68/100 against Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct (45). It leads on price, inputs & features and 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 priceQwen FlashQwen Flash $0.138 · Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct $0.485 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen FlashQwen Flash 1,000,000 · Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct 128,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsQwen Flash: Text · Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct: Text
- Self-hostingLlama 3.1 Nemotron 70B InstructPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Qwen Flash | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 91 | 65 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 60 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 68/100 | 45/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Qwen FlashAlibaba (Qwen) | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B InstructNVIDIA |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.05 (best) | $0.478 |
| Output | $0.40 (best) | $0.504 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.138 (best) | $0.485 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Alibaba API | Median of 2 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 128,000 tokens |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | qwen-flash | nvidia/llama-3.1-nemotron-70b-instruct |
| API providers | 6 (best) | 3 |
| Released | Jul 28, 2025 | Apr 15, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2024 | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Qwen Flash$1.30
- Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct$5.79
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen Flash or Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct?
Qwen Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 68/100 against Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct (45). It leads on price, inputs & features and 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, Qwen Flash or Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct?
Qwen Flash is cheaper at $0.05 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct costs $0.478 input / $0.504 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers; free on Nvidia). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.138 per million tokens for Qwen Flash versus $0.485 for Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct (3.5× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Qwen Flash has not been scored yet and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen Flash and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B 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?
Qwen Flash has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 128,000 for Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct. Maximum output per response: Qwen Flash up to 32,768, Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen Flash accepts text; Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Qwen Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen Flash is the newest, released Jul 28, 2025. Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct came out Apr 15, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen Flash Apr 2024.
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.
Related comparisons
- Add Voxtral Small 24B 2507Three-way comparison
- Qwen Flash vs Voxtral Small 24B 2507Mistral AI
- Qwen Flash vs Apertus 8BSwiss AI
- Qwen Flash vs Granite-4.0-H-SmallIBM
- Qwen Flash vs Sarvam 105BSarvam AI
- Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct vs Qwen3-VL 30B-A3BAlibaba (Qwen)
- Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct vs GLM-4.5-AirZ.ai (Zhipu)
