# Claude 2 vs Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct

> Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.3 to 24.7 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-2-vs-llama-3-3-70b-instruct
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 6

## Summary

- They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2 scores higher in 1 category and Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct in 2 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct leads 30.5 to 17.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is MATH Level 5: 11.7% for Claude 2 and 41.6% for Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct.
- Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude 2 | Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 24.7 | 30.3 |
| Rank | 342 | 283 |
| Context | — | 128K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.10 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.32 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude 2: —
- Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 30.6 (#284)

| Benchmark | Claude 2 | Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 26% |
| WeirdML | — | 14.4% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 46.9% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 36.6% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1268 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 57.5% |
| HumanEval+ | 61.6% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude 2: —
- Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 25.6 (#100)

| Benchmark | Claude 2 | Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 31.9% |
| BALROG | — | 23% |

## Reasoning

- Claude 2: 20.8 (#213)
- Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 13.7 (#325)

| Benchmark | Claude 2 | Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 51.9% | 59.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 120.08 | 127.32 |
| SimpleBench | — | 19.9% |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 50.8% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1257 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 49.5% |
| LMCA | — | 17.5% |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.6 |
| LiveBench | — | 50.2% |

## Math

- Claude 2: 8.7 (#314)
- Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 14.3 (#292)

| Benchmark | Claude 2 | Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 2.5% | 5.1% |
| MATH Level 5 | 11.7% | 41.6% |
| LiveBench Math | — | 42.2% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1268 |

## Knowledge

- Claude 2: 17.0 (#282)
- Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 30.5 (#220)

| Benchmark | Claude 2 | Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 34.7% | 47.4% |
| MMLU | 78.5% | 86.3% |
| Confabulations | — | 22.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 4.1% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1225 |
| TriviaQA | 87.5% | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude 2: —
- Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 40.1 (#215)

| Benchmark | Claude 2 | Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1236 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1217 |
| LMArena French | — | 1280 |
| LMArena German | — | 1251 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1149 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1142 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1252 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1269 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude 2: —
- Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 71.3 (#152)

| Benchmark | Claude 2 | Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 82.7% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1242 |

## Long Context

- Claude 2: —
- Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 26.4 (#290)

| Benchmark | Claude 2 | Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 33.3% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1256 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude 2: —
- Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 47.8 (#203)

| Benchmark | Claude 2 | Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1274 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1250 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1279 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 39.2% |

## FAQ

### Is Claude 2 better than Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct?

Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.3 to 24.7 on the Noometry Index.

### How many benchmarks do Claude 2 and Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct share?

6 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2 has 8 scored results on Noometry and Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct has 43.