Model comparison
Llama 3.1-70B vs Qwen3.7 Max
Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.1-70B costs 9.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.1-70B scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.7 Max in 8 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 62.4 to 13.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 3.6% for Llama 3.1-70B and 95.6% for Qwen3.7 Max.
- Llama 3.1-70B is cheaper at $0.40 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $7.50 for Qwen3.7 Max.
- Qwen3.7 Max accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
- Llama 3.1-70B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Llama 3.1-70B | Qwen3.7 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 51.5 |
| Released | 2024-07-23 | 2026-05-19 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Max output | 4K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.40 | $2.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.40 | $7.50 |
| Results tracked | 35 | 33 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.7 Max leads
Llama 3.1-70B: 30.3 (#296), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1260 | 1498 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 77.3% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1515 |
| SciCode | — | 48.8% |
| WeirdML | 9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 46.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 54.8% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,189 |
Agentic & Tool Use Llama 3.1-70B leads
Llama 3.1-70B: 25.1 (#112), Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | 6.9% | — |
| BALROG | 27.9% | — |
| GBAEval | — | 0.4% |
Reasoning Qwen3.7 Max leads
Llama 3.1-70B: 21.6 (#220), Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1241 | 1483 |
| DTBench | 60% | 92.3% |
| LMCA | 14.8% | 44% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 125.92 | 153.68 |
| SimpleBench | — | 70.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 85.1% |
| CritPt | — | 13.4% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 19% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 9.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 32% |
Math Qwen3.7 Max leads
Llama 3.1-70B: 13.5 (#304), Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 3.6% | 95.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1252 | 1490 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 64.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 34.1% |
| ProofBench | — | 26% |
| Omni-MATH | 21% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 36.7% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.7 Max leads
Llama 3.1-70B: 24.2 (#269), Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 44.2% | 90.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1209 | 1488 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 55.8% |
| MMLU-Pro | 65.3% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 42.6% | — |
| MMLU | 80.1% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.7 Max leads
Llama 3.1-70B: 38.8 (#225), Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1219 | 1474 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1215 | 1530 |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | 1484 |
| LMArena French | 1261 | — |
| LMArena German | 1222 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1132 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1140 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1253 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Max leads
Llama 3.1-70B: 65.3 (#223), Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1231 | 1460 |
| IFEval | 82.1% | — |
Long Context Qwen3.7 Max leads
Llama 3.1-70B: 37.6 (#214), Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1241 | 1482 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Max leads
Llama 3.1-70B: 35.4 (#267), Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1261 | 1476 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1232 | 1449 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1256 | 1481 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 784 | — |
| WildBench | 75.8% | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1110 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.1-70B better than Qwen3.7 Max?
Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.1-70B costs 9.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Llama 3.1-70B or Qwen3.7 Max?
Llama 3.1-70B is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Max lists at $2.50 and $7.50.
Is Llama 3.1-70B or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?
Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.4 versus 30.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.7 Max does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.1-70B and Qwen3.7 Max share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.1-70B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.