Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Llama 3.1-70B

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.1-70B costs 20× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic

68.6

Rank #3 Confirmed

Llama 3.1-70B Meta

29.6

Rank #308 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher in 9 categories and Llama 3.1-70B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 91.8 to 13.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 100% for Claude Opus 5.5 and 3.6% for Llama 3.1-70B.
  • Llama 3.1-70B is cheaper at $0.40 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $4 / $20 for Claude Opus 5.5.
  • Claude Opus 5.5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
  • Llama 3.1-70B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 5.5Llama 3.1-70B
ProviderAnthropicMeta
Noometry Index68.629.6
Released2026-09-222024-07-23
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M128K
Max output128K4K
Input $ / M tokens$4$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$20$0.40
Results tracked4435

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 71.9 (#3), Llama 3.1-70B: 30.3 (#296)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.1-70B
LMArena Coding15471260
FrontierCode54.6%—
CursorBench57.8%—
LMArena WebDev1813—
FrontierSWE62.3%—
SciCode66.9%—
WeirdML—9%
BigCodeBench Instruct—46.1%
MirrorCode77.4%—
BigCodeBench Complete—54.8%
ALE-Bench2,147—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#15), Llama 3.1-70B: 25.1 (#112)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.1-70B
APEX-Agents73.5%—
TheAgentCompany—6.9%
BALROG—27.9%
GDP.pdf30.6%—
Vending-Bench 29,235—

Reasoning Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 80.2 (#3), Llama 3.1-70B: 21.6 (#220)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.1-70B
LMArena Hard Prompts15351241
DTBench98.9%60%
LMCA68.2%14.8%
Epoch Capabilities Index167.33125.92
ARC-AGI-293.3%—
NYT Connections (extended)88.5%—
ARC-AGI-198.5%—
CritPt31.7%—
EBR-Bench71.4%—
Mystery Game Puzzles71%—

Math Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 91.8 (#3), Llama 3.1-70B: 13.5 (#304)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.1-70B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%3.6%
LMArena Math15061252
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)91.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 495%—
ProofBench100%—
Omni-MATH—21%
MATH Level 5—36.7%
FrontierMath Erdős2.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 66.4 (#10), Llama 3.1-70B: 24.2 (#269)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.1-70B
GPQA Diamond90.6%44.2%
LMArena Expert15471209
SimpleQA Verified72.2%—
MMLU-Pro—65.3%
GPQA (HELM)—42.6%
MMLU—80.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 57.8 (#1), Llama 3.1-70B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.1-70B
LMArena Vision1321—
Blueprint-Bench 251.2%—
Furniture Assembly83.3%—

Multilingual Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 59.1 (#2), Llama 3.1-70B: 38.8 (#225)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.1-70B
LMArena Non-English15071219
LMArena Chinese15881215
LMArena French15141261
LMArena Russian15201234
LMArena Spanish15071253
LMArena German—1222
LMArena Japanese—1132
LMArena Korean—1140

Instruction Following Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 80.0 (#3), Llama 3.1-70B: 65.3 (#223)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.1-70B
LMArena Instruction Following15371231
IFEval—82.1%

Long Context Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 47.1 (#19), Llama 3.1-70B: 37.6 (#214)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.1-70B
LMArena Longer Query15321241

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 78.2 (#3), Llama 3.1-70B: 35.4 (#267)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.1-70B
LMArena Text15151261
LMArena Creative Writing15331232
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2050784
LMArena Multi-Turn14991256
WildBench—75.8%

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Llama 3.1-70B?

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.1-70B costs 20× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 or Llama 3.1-70B?

Llama 3.1-70B is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 5.5 lists at $4 and $20.

Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Llama 3.1-70B better for coding?

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.9 versus 30.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 5.5 does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and Llama 3.1-70B share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 44 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.1-70B has 35.

Related comparisons

Go deeper