Model comparison
Claude 2.1 vs Llama 3.1-70B
Llama 3.1-70B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.6 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 6 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 0 categories and Llama 3.1-70B in 4 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Llama 3.1-70B leads 24.2 to 15.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 33% for Claude 2.1 and 44.2% for Llama 3.1-70B.
- Llama 3.1-70B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.1-70B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 25.2 | 29.6 |
| Released | 2023-11-21 | 2024-07-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 128K |
| Max output | — | 4K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 7 | 35 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Llama 3.1-70B leads
Claude 2.1: 26.2 (#327), Llama 3.1-70B: 30.3 (#296)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 7.1% | 9% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 46.1% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1260 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.8% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Llama 3.1-70B: 25.1 (#112)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | — | 6.9% |
| BALROG | — | 27.9% |
Reasoning Too close to call
Claude 2.1: 21.4 (#221), Llama 3.1-70B: 21.6 (#220)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 51% | 60% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.27 | 125.92 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1241 |
| LMCA | — | 14.8% |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |
Math Llama 3.1-70B leads
Claude 2.1: 10.2 (#315), Llama 3.1-70B: 13.5 (#304)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | 3.6% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 21% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1252 |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 36.7% |
Knowledge Llama 3.1-70B leads
Claude 2.1: 15.4 (#292), Llama 3.1-70B: 24.2 (#269)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | 44.2% |
| MMLU | 73.5% | 80.1% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 65.3% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 42.6% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1209 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Llama 3.1-70B: 38.8 (#225)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1219 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1215 |
| LMArena French | — | 1261 |
| LMArena German | — | 1222 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1132 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1140 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1234 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1253 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Llama 3.1-70B: 65.3 (#223)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | — | 82.1% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1231 |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Llama 3.1-70B: 37.6 (#214)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1241 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Llama 3.1-70B: 35.4 (#267)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1261 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1232 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 784 |
| WildBench | — | 75.8% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1256 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 2.1 better than Llama 3.1-70B?
Llama 3.1-70B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.6 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 2.1 or Llama 3.1-70B better for coding?
Llama 3.1-70B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 30.3 versus 26.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Llama 3.1-70B share?
6 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.1-70B has 35.