Llama 3 70B vs Llama 3.1 405B
Llama 3 70B (2024) and Llama 3.1 405B (2024) are compact production models from AI at Meta. Llama 3 70B ships a 8k-token context window, while Llama 3.1 405B ships a 128k-token context window. On Google-Proof Q&A, Llama 3.1 405B leads by 7.4 pts. This comparison covers specs, pricing, API access, capabilities, benchmarks, input and output token costs, and production fit for coding and agent workloads.
Llama 3.1 405B fits 16x more tokens; pick it for long-context work and Llama 3 70B for tighter calls.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Llama 3 70B | Llama 3.1 405B |
|---|---|---|
| Best for | general production evaluation | general production evaluation |
| Decision fit | Coding and Classification | Coding, Long context, and Classification |
| Context window | 8k | 128k |
| Cheapest output | $2.75/1M tokens | - |
| Provider routes | 1 tracked | 0 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 5 rows | Google-Proof Q&A leader |
Decision tradeoffs
- Llama 3 70B has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- Local decision data tags Llama 3 70B for Coding and Classification.
- Llama 3.1 405B holds a shared-benchmark lead on Google-Proof Q&A, ahead by 7.4 points.
- Llama 3.1 405B has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- Local decision data tags Llama 3.1 405B for Coding, Long context, and Classification.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.
Llama 3 70B
$1,208
Cheapest tracked route/tier: Replicate API
Llama 3.1 405B
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
Cost delta unavailable until both models have sourced input and output token prices.
Switch friction
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Llama 3 70B and Llama 3.1 405B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Llama 3.1 405B and Llama 3 70B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2024-04-18 | 2024-07-23 |
| Context window | 8k | 128k |
| Parameters | 70B | 405B |
| Architecture | decoder only | decoder only |
| License | Llama 3 Community | Llama 3 Community |
| Openness | Open weights | Open weights |
| Commercial use | Commercial use with conditions | Commercial use with conditions |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2023-12 | 2023-12 |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Llama 3 70B | Llama 3.1 405B |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.65/1M tokens | - |
| Output price | $2.75/1M tokens | - |
| Providers | - |
Capabilities
| Capability | Llama 3 70B | Llama 3.1 405B |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | No | No |
| Multimodal | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Function calling | No | No |
| Tool use | No | No |
| Structured outputs | No | No |
| Code execution | No | No |
| IDE integration | No | No |
| Computer use | No | No |
| Parallel agents | No | No |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Llama 3 70B | Llama 3.1 405B |
|---|---|---|
| Google-Proof Q&A | 44.1 | 51.5 |
| HumanEval | 72.6 | 89.0 |
| Massive Multitask Language Understanding | 80.5 | 88.6 |
| HellaSwag | 92.4 | 95.8 |
| Grade School Math 8K | 93.0 | 95.7 |
Deep dive
On shared benchmark coverage, Google-Proof Q&A has Llama 3 70B at 44.1 and Llama 3.1 405B at 51.5, with Llama 3.1 405B ahead by 7.4 points; HumanEval has Llama 3 70B at 72.6 and Llama 3.1 405B at 89, with Llama 3.1 405B ahead by 16.4 points; Massive Multitask Language Understanding has Llama 3 70B at 80.5 and Llama 3.1 405B at 88.6, with Llama 3.1 405B ahead by 8.1 points. The largest visible gap is 16.4 points on HumanEval, which matters most when that benchmark mirrors your workload. Treat isolated benchmark wins as directional, because provider routing, prompt style, and tool access can move real application results.
The capability footprint is close: both models cover the core production surface. That makes context budget, benchmark fit, and provider maturity more important than a simple checklist. If your application depends on one integration detail, verify it against the provider route you plan to use, not just the base model listing.
Pricing coverage is uneven: Llama 3 70B has $0.65/1M input tokens and Llama 3.1 405B has no token price sourced yet. Provider availability is 1 tracked routes versus 0. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.
Choose Llama 3 70B when provider fit and broader provider choice are central to the workload. Choose Llama 3.1 405B when long-context analysis and larger context windows are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship.
FAQ
Which has a larger context window, Llama 3 70B or Llama 3.1 405B?
Llama 3.1 405B supports 128k tokens, while Llama 3 70B supports 8k tokens. That gap matters most for long documents, large codebases, retrieval-heavy agents, and conversations where earlier context must remain visible.
Is Llama 3 70B or Llama 3.1 405B open source?
Llama 3 70B is listed under Llama 3 Community. Llama 3.1 405B is listed under Llama 3 Community. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.
Where can I run Llama 3 70B and Llama 3.1 405B?
Llama 3 70B is available on Replicate API. Llama 3.1 405B is available on the tracked providers still being sourced. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
When should I pick Llama 3 70B over Llama 3.1 405B?
Llama 3.1 405B fits 16x more tokens; pick it for long-context work and Llama 3 70B for tighter calls. If your workload also depends on provider fit, start with Llama 3 70B; if it depends on long-context analysis, run the same evaluation with Llama 3.1 405B.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-04-15. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.