Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Claude 3.5 Haiku and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct are closely matched at 5.8 and 8.2 on the LLM Stats Score. Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is 8.0x cheaper per token.
Anthropic · Meta · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Claude 3.5 Haiku and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 5.8 and 8.2.
The models split the 4 individual benchmarks reported for both models evenly.
On price, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is roughly 8.0x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Claude 3.5 Haiku also accepts a larger context window (200,000 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Claude 3.5 Haiku
- you process long inputs — it offers a 200,000 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2024
Choose Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
- cost matters — it's about 8.0x cheaper per token
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
9 reported for Claude 3.5 Haiku · 18 for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Claude 3.5 Haiku outperforms in 2 benchmarks (DROP, HumanEval), while Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is better at 2 benchmarks (GPQA, MMLU-Pro).
Both models are evenly matched across the benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Claude 3.5 Haiku ($0.80/1M tokens) is 4.0x more expensive than Llama 3.1 70B Instruct ($0.20/1M tokens).
For output processing, Claude 3.5 Haiku ($4.00/1M tokens) is 20.0x more expensive than Llama 3.1 70B Instruct ($0.20/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Claude 3.5 Haiku is more expensive than Llama 3.1 70B Instruct.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Claude 3.5 Haiku accepts 200,000 input tokens compared to Llama 3.1 70B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Claude 3.5 Haiku can generate longer responses up to 200,000 tokens, while Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is limited to 128,000 tokens.
License
Usage and distribution terms
Claude 3.5 Haiku is licensed under a proprietary license, while Llama 3.1 70B Instruct uses Llama 3.1 Community License.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Proprietary
Closed source
Llama 3.1 Community License
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Claude 3.5 Haiku was released on 2024-10-22, while Llama 3.1 70B Instruct was released on 2024-07-23.
Claude 3.5 Haiku is 3 months newer than Llama 3.1 70B Instruct.
Oct 22, 2024
1.9 years ago
3mo newerJul 23, 2024
2.1 years ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
Claude 3.5 Haiku is available from Bedrock, Google, Anthropic. Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is available from Lambda, DeepInfra, Hyperbolic, Groq, Cerebras, Together, Fireworks, Bedrock, Sambanova.
Claude 3.5 Haiku
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Claude 3.5 Haiku and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Llama 3.1 70B Instruct.