Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 30.3 on the Noometry Index. Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct costs 129× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 23 shared benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic

68.5

Rank #2 Confirmed

Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct Meta

30.3

Rank #283 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher in 9 categories and Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 89.5 to 14.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 100% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 5.1% for Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct.
  • Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.32 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $50 for Claude Fable 5.1.
  • Claude Fable 5.1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
  • Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5.1Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct
ProviderAnthropicMeta
Noometry Index68.530.3
Released2026-09-012024-12-06
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M128K
Max output128K4K
Input $ / M tokens$10$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$50$0.32
Results tracked5043

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 70.5 (#2), Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 30.6 (#284)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct
SciCode63.1%26%
WeirdML92.9%14.4%
LMArena Coding15231268
FrontierCode50.9%—
CursorBench51.8%—
LMArena WebDev1753—
FrontierSWE56.3%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—46.9%
LiveBench Coding—36.6%
MirrorCode73.3%—
BigCodeBench Complete—57.5%
ALE-Bench2,143—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 50.8 (#5), Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 25.6 (#100)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct
APEX-Agents68.6%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—31.9%
Remote Labor Index17.9%—
BALROG—23%
GDP.pdf29.6%—
Vending-Bench 25,422—

Reasoning Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#5), Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 13.7 (#325)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct
CritPt31.1%0%
LMArena Hard Prompts15261257
DTBench97.6%59.5%
LMCA65.5%17.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index165127.32
ARC-AGI-290%—
SimpleBench—19.9%
NYT Connections (extended)90%—
ARC-AGI-197.5%—
Chess Puzzles47%—
EBR-Bench57.1%—
LiveBench Reasoning—50.8%
Mystery Game Puzzles58%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.5%
ForecastBench—58.6
LiveBench—50.2%

Math Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 89.5 (#3), Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 14.3 (#292)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%5.1%
LMArena Math15191268
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)90.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 487.8%—
ProofBench100%—
LiveBench Math—42.2%
MATH Level 5—41.6%
FrontierMath Erdős0%—

Knowledge Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 69.3 (#5), Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 30.5 (#220)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct
LMArena Expert15281225
GPQA Diamond—47.4%
Humanity's Last Exam46.5%—
SimpleQA Verified70.8%—
Confabulations—22.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—4.1%
MMLU—86.3%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 54.1 (#4), Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct
LMArena Vision1319—
Blueprint-Bench 241.9%—
Furniture Assembly70%—
LMArena Document1513—

Multilingual Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 59.5 (#2), Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 40.1 (#215)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct
LMArena Non-English15091236
LMArena Chinese15891217
LMArena French15321280
LMArena German14951251
LMArena Japanese15651149
LMArena Russian15251252
LMArena Spanish15031269
LMArena Korean—1142

Instruction Following Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.3 (#6), Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 71.3 (#152)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following15151242
LiveBench Instruction Following—82.7%

Long Context Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 46.8 (#19), Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 26.4 (#290)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct
LMArena Longer Query15241256
Fiction.LiveBench—33.3%

Writing & Preference Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.3 (#1), Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 47.8 (#203)

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct
LMArena Text15111274
LMArena Creative Writing15071250
LMArena Multi-Turn14921279
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2162—
LiveBench Language—39.2%

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct?

Claude Fable 5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 30.3 on the Noometry Index. Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct costs 129× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Fable 5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct?

Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.32 per million output tokens; Claude Fable 5.1 lists at $10 and $50.

Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct better for coding?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 70.5 versus 30.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Fable 5.1 does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct share?

23 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 50 scored results on Noometry and Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct has 43.

Related comparisons

Go deeper