Noometry

Model comparison

Llama 3.1-70B vs Qwen3.6 Flash

Qwen3.6 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 5 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.1-70B Meta

29.6

Rank #308 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

38.8

Rank #182 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.1-70B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Flash in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 Flash leads 39.0 to 13.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 3.6% for Llama 3.1-70B and 84.4% for Qwen3.6 Flash.
  • Llama 3.1-70B is cheaper at $0.40 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.19 / $1.13 for Qwen3.6 Flash.
  • Qwen3.6 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
  • Llama 3.1-70B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Llama 3.1-70BQwen3.6 Flash
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.638.8
Released2024-07-232026-04-27
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window128K1M
Max output4K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.40$0.19
Output $ / M tokens$0.40$1.13
Results tracked3513

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 30.3 (#296), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen3.6 Flash
WeirdML9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct46.1%—
LMArena Coding1260—
BigCodeBench Complete54.8%—
ALE-Bench—326.4

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 25.1 (#112), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen3.6 Flash
TheAgentCompany6.9%—
BALROG27.9%—

Reasoning Qwen3.6 Flash leads

Llama 3.1-70B: 21.6 (#220), Qwen3.6 Flash: 29.0 (#96)

BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen3.6 Flash
DTBench60%77.1%
LMCA14.8%31%
Epoch Capabilities Index125.92143.26
SimpleBench—35.2%
Chess Puzzles—20%
LMArena Hard Prompts1241—
Mystery Game Puzzles—18%

Math Qwen3.6 Flash leads

Llama 3.1-70B: 13.5 (#304), Qwen3.6 Flash: 39.0 (#117)

BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen3.6 Flash
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20253.6%84.4%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—22.5%
Omni-MATH21%—
LMArena Math1252—
MATH Level 536.7%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—10.3%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Qwen3.6 Flash leads

Llama 3.1-70B: 24.2 (#269), Qwen3.6 Flash: 42.1 (#100)

BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen3.6 Flash
GPQA Diamond44.2%83.3%
SimpleQA Verified—15.9%
MMLU-Pro65.3%—
GPQA (HELM)42.6%—
LMArena Expert1209—
MMLU80.1%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 38.8 (#225), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Non-English1219—
LMArena Chinese1215—
LMArena French1261—
LMArena German1222—
LMArena Japanese1132—
LMArena Korean1140—
LMArena Russian1234—
LMArena Spanish1253—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 65.3 (#223), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen3.6 Flash
IFEval82.1%—
LMArena Instruction Following1231—

Long Context Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 37.6 (#214), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1241—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 35.4 (#267), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Text1261—
LMArena Creative Writing1232—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing784—
WildBench75.8%—
LMArena Multi-Turn1256—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.1-70B better than Qwen3.6 Flash?

Qwen3.6 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.1-70B or Qwen3.6 Flash?

Llama 3.1-70B is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Flash lists at $0.19 and $1.13.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.1-70B and Qwen3.6 Flash share?

5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.1-70B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Flash has 13.

Related comparisons

Go deeper