Noometry

Model comparison

Llama 3.1-70B vs Qwen3 Coder Next

Qwen3 Coder Next is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.8 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.1-70B Meta

29.4

Rank #299 Confirmed

Qwen3 Coder Next Alibaba (Qwen)

33.8

Rank #229 Reported

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Llama 3.1-70B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3 Coder Next in 2 categories; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen3 Coder Next leads 35.8 to 29.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 9% for Llama 3.1-70B and 34.4% for Qwen3 Coder Next.
  • Qwen3 Coder Next is cheaper at $0.12 / $0.80 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $0.40 for Llama 3.1-70B.
  • Qwen3 Coder Next accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Llama 3.1-70BQwen3 Coder Next
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.433.8
Released2024-07-232026-02-02
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K262K
Max output4K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.40$0.12
Output $ / M tokens$0.40$0.80
Results tracked353

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3 Coder Next leads

Llama 3.1-70B: 29.8 (#292), Qwen3 Coder Next: 35.8 (#206)

BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen3 Coder Next
WeirdML9%34.4%
SciCode—32.3%
BigCodeBench Instruct46.1%—
LMArena Coding1260—
BigCodeBench Complete54.8%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 24.9 (#104), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen3 Coder Next
TheAgentCompany6.9%—
BALROG27.9%—

Reasoning Too close to call

Llama 3.1-70B: 20.8 (#215), Qwen3 Coder Next: 21.7 (#191)

BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen3 Coder Next
CritPt—0%
LMArena Hard Prompts1241—
DTBench60%—
LMCA14.8%—
Epoch Capabilities Index125.91—

Math Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 12.7 (#298), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen3 Coder Next
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20253.6%—
Omni-MATH21%—
LMArena Math1252—
MATH Level 536.7%—

Knowledge Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 24.1 (#264), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen3 Coder Next
GPQA Diamond44.2%—
MMLU-Pro65.3%—
GPQA (HELM)42.6%—
LMArena Expert1209—
MMLU80.1%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 38.9 (#220), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Non-English1219—
LMArena Chinese1215—
LMArena French1260—
LMArena German1222—
LMArena Japanese1132—
LMArena Korean1140—
LMArena Russian1234—
LMArena Spanish1253—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 65.5 (#218), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen3 Coder Next
IFEval82.1%—
LMArena Instruction Following1231—

Long Context Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 37.6 (#208), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Longer Query1241—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 35.6 (#262), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BQwen3 Coder Next
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 Coder Next?

Qwen3 Coder Next is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.8 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.1-70B or Qwen3 Coder Next?

Qwen3 Coder Next is cheaper. It lists at $0.12 per million input tokens and $0.80 per million output tokens; Llama 3.1-70B lists at $0.40 and $0.40.

Is Llama 3.1-70B or Qwen3 Coder Next better for coding?

Qwen3 Coder Next scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.8 versus 29.8 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3 Coder Next does, with 262K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.1-70B and Qwen3 Coder Next share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Llama 3.1-70B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 Coder Next has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper