Model comparison
Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct vs Qwen3.7 Max
Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 30.6 on the Noometry Index. Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct costs 24× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.7 Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct 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 15.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 5.1% for Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct and 95.6% for Qwen3.7 Max.
- Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.32 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-3.3-70B-Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct | Qwen3.7 Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 30.6 | 51.5 |
| Released | 2024-12-06 | 2026-05-19 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Max output | 4K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.10 | $2.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.32 | $7.50 |
| Results tracked | 43 | 33 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.7 Max leads
Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 31.0 (#290), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45)
| Benchmark | Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 26% | 48.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1268 | 1498 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 77.3% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1515 |
| WeirdML | 14.4% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 46.9% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 36.6% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 57.5% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,189 |
Agentic & Tool Use Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct leads
Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 25.8 (#105), Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135)
| Benchmark | Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 31.9% | — |
| BALROG | 23% | — |
| GBAEval | — | 0.4% |
Reasoning Qwen3.7 Max leads
Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 14.1 (#327), Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38)
| Benchmark | Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 19.9% | 70.4% |
| CritPt | 0% | 13.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1257 | 1483 |
| DTBench | 59.5% | 92.3% |
| LMCA | 17.5% | 44% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 127.33 | 153.68 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 85.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 19% |
| EBR-Bench | — | 9.5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 50.8% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 32% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 49.5% | — |
| ForecastBench | 58.6 | — |
| LiveBench | 50.2% | — |
Math Qwen3.7 Max leads
Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 15.3 (#298), Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32)
| Benchmark | Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 5.1% | 95.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1267 | 1490 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 64.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 34.1% |
| ProofBench | — | 26% |
| LiveBench Math | 42.2% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 41.6% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.7 Max leads
Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 30.6 (#226), Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28)
| Benchmark | Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 47.4% | 90.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1225 | 1488 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 55.8% |
| Confabulations | 22.8% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 4.1% | — |
| MMLU | 86.3% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.7 Max leads
Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 39.9 (#220), Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15)
| Benchmark | Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1236 | 1474 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1217 | 1530 |
| LMArena Russian | 1252 | 1484 |
| LMArena French | 1281 | — |
| LMArena German | 1251 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1150 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1143 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1270 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen3.7 Max leads
Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 71.1 (#157), Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38)
| Benchmark | Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1242 | 1460 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 82.7% | — |
Long Context Qwen3.7 Max leads
Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 26.4 (#295), Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40)
| Benchmark | Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1256 | 1482 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 33.3% | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Max leads
Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 47.6 (#207), Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54)
| Benchmark | Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct | Qwen3.7 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1274 | 1476 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1250 | 1449 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1280 | 1481 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1110 |
| LiveBench Language | 39.2% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct better than Qwen3.7 Max?
Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 30.6 on the Noometry Index. Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct costs 24× 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-3.3-70B-Instruct or Qwen3.7 Max?
Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.32 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Max lists at $2.50 and $7.50.
Is Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?
Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.4 versus 31.0 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-3.3-70B-Instruct and Qwen3.7 Max share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct has 43 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.