Qwen-MT Turbo vs Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct comes out ahead, 45 to 40 on our weighted score, though Qwen-MT Turbo is 2× cheaper per token.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen-MT Turbo
40/100- ECI—
- Price$0.16 / $0.49
- Context16K
- Our pick
NVIDIALlama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
45/100- ECI—
- Price$0.478 / $0.504
- Context128K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
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 Qwen-MT Turbo (40). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Qwen-MT Turbo wins on price. 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-MT TurboQwen-MT Turbo $0.242 · Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct $0.485 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextLlama 3.1 Nemotron 70B InstructLlama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct 128,000 · Qwen-MT Turbo 16,384 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsQwen-MT Turbo: Text · Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct: Text
- Self-hostingLlama 3.1 Nemotron 70B InstructPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Qwen-MT Turbo | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 79 | 65 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 0 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 0 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 40/100 | 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-MT TurboAlibaba (Qwen) | Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B InstructNVIDIA |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.16 (best) | $0.478 |
| Output | $0.49 (best) | $0.504 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.242 (best) | $0.485 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Alibaba API | Median of 2 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 16,384 tokens | 128,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Tool calling | No | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | qwen-mt-turbo | nvidia/llama-3.1-nemotron-70b-instruct |
| API providers | 1 | 3 (best) |
| Released | Jan 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-MT Turbo$2.58
- Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct$5.79
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen-MT Turbo or Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct?
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct is the better all-round choice, scoring 45/100 against Qwen-MT Turbo (40). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Qwen-MT Turbo wins on price. 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-MT Turbo or Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct?
Qwen-MT Turbo is cheaper at $0.16 input / $0.49 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 $0.242 per million tokens for Qwen-MT Turbo versus $0.485 for Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct (2× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Qwen-MT Turbo 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-MT Turbo 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. Note that Qwen-MT Turbo does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct has the largest context window at 128,000 tokens, against 16,384 for Qwen-MT Turbo. Maximum output per response: Qwen-MT Turbo up to 8,192, Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen-MT Turbo 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-MT Turbo is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct is the newest, released Apr 15, 2025. Qwen-MT Turbo came out Jan 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen-MT Turbo 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 Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-InstructThree-way comparison
- Qwen-MT Turbo vs Llama-3.2-11B-Vision-InstructMeta
- Qwen-MT Turbo vs Command RCohere
- Qwen-MT Turbo vs Solar Pro 2Upstage
- Qwen-MT Turbo vs Phi-4-miniMicrosoft
- 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)
