Noometry

Model comparison

Claude 2.1 vs Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct

Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.6 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 7 shared benchmarks.

Claude 2.1 Anthropic

25.2

Rank #345 Reported

Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct Meta

30.6

Rank #291 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 7 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 1 category and Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct in 3 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct leads 30.6 to 15.4.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 33% for Claude 2.1 and 47.4% for Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct.
  • Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude 2.1Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct
ProviderAnthropicMeta
Noometry Index25.230.6
Released2023-11-212024-12-06
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—128K
Max output—4K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.10
Output $ / M tokens—$0.32
Results tracked743

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct leads

Claude 2.1: 26.2 (#327), Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 31.0 (#290)

BenchmarkClaude 2.1Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct
WeirdML7.1%14.4%
SciCode—26%
BigCodeBench Instruct—46.9%
LiveBench Coding—36.6%
LMArena Coding—1268
BigCodeBench Complete—57.5%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude 2.1: —, Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 25.8 (#105)

BenchmarkClaude 2.1Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—31.9%
BALROG—23%

Reasoning Claude 2.1 leads

Claude 2.1: 21.4 (#221), Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 14.1 (#327)

BenchmarkClaude 2.1Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct
DTBench51%59.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index119.27127.33
ForecastBench54.258.6
SimpleBench—19.9%
CritPt—0%
LiveBench Reasoning—50.8%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1257
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.5%
LMCA—17.5%
LiveBench—50.2%

Math Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct leads

Claude 2.1: 10.2 (#315), Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 15.3 (#298)

BenchmarkClaude 2.1Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20251.9%5.1%
LiveBench Math—42.2%
LMArena Math—1267
MATH Level 5—41.6%

Knowledge Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct leads

Claude 2.1: 15.4 (#292), Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 30.6 (#226)

BenchmarkClaude 2.1Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct
GPQA Diamond33%47.4%
MMLU73.5%86.3%
Confabulations—22.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—4.1%
LMArena Expert—1225

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude 2.1: —, Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 39.9 (#220)

BenchmarkClaude 2.1Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct
LMArena Non-English—1236
LMArena Chinese—1217
LMArena French—1281
LMArena German—1251
LMArena Japanese—1150
LMArena Korean—1143
LMArena Russian—1252
LMArena Spanish—1270

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude 2.1: —, Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 71.1 (#157)

BenchmarkClaude 2.1Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct
LiveBench Instruction Following—82.7%
LMArena Instruction Following—1242

Long Context Not comparable

Claude 2.1: —, Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 26.4 (#295)

BenchmarkClaude 2.1Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct
Fiction.LiveBench—33.3%
LMArena Longer Query—1256

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Claude 2.1: —, Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 47.6 (#207)

BenchmarkClaude 2.1Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct
LMArena Text—1274
LMArena Creative Writing—1250
LMArena Multi-Turn—1280
LiveBench Language—39.2%

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude 2.1 better than Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct?

Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.6 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.

Is Claude 2.1 or Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct better for coding?

Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 31.0 versus 26.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct share?

7 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct has 43.

Related comparisons

Go deeper