The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude 3 Haiku vs Llama 3.1 405B Instruct

Llama 3.1 405B Instruct leads the LLM Stats Score 14.9 to -1.2. Claude 3 Haiku is 1.8x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · Meta · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Llama 3.1 405B Instruct leads the overall LLM Stats Score 14.9 to -1.2, ranking #217 overall.

In the 7 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Llama 3.1 405B Instruct wins 7; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, Claude 3 Haiku is roughly 1.8x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Claude 3 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 Haiku

  • cost matters — it's about 1.8x cheaper per token
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 200,000 token context window

Choose Llama 3.1 405B Instruct

  • overall performance matters — it scores 14.9 and ranks #217 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 7 of 7 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Jul 2024
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude 3 Haiku
Anthropic
Llama 3.1 405B Instruct
Meta
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
-1.2
#318
14.9
#217
Reasoning
-1.3
#311
14.0
#218
Coding
0.7
#225
11.6
#144
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
0 of 7
7 of 7
Input price
$0.25 / M
$0.89 / M
Output price
$1.25 / M
$0.89 / M
Context window
200,000
128,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Claude 3 Haiku
Llama 3.1 405B Instruct
Math
4.7#271
19.5#159
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

10 reported for Claude 3 Haiku · 18 for Llama 3.1 405B Instruct

7 shared

Claude 3 Haiku outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Llama 3.1 405B Instruct is better at 7 benchmarks (ARC-C, DROP, GPQA, GSM8k, HumanEval, MATH, MMLU).

Llama 3.1 405B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Mon Aug 31 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Claude 3 Haiku costs less

For input processing, Claude 3 Haiku ($0.25/1M tokens) is 3.6x cheaper than Llama 3.1 405B Instruct ($0.89/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude 3 Haiku ($1.25/1M tokens) is 1.4x more expensive than Llama 3.1 405B Instruct ($0.89/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Llama 3.1 405B Instruct is more expensive than Claude 3 Haiku.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Mon Aug 31 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude 3 Haiku
Input tokens$0.25
Output tokens$1.25
Best providerAnthropic
Meta
Llama 3.1 405B Instruct
Input tokens$0.89
Output tokens$0.89
Best providerLambda
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Claude 3 Haiku accepts 200,000 input tokens compared to Llama 3.1 405B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Claude 3 Haiku can generate longer responses up to 200,000 tokens, while Llama 3.1 405B Instruct is limited to 128,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude 3 Haiku
Input200,000 tokens
Output200,000 tokens
Meta
Llama 3.1 405B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Mon Aug 31 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Claude 3 Haiku supports multimodal inputs, whereas Llama 3.1 405B Instruct does not.

Claude 3 Haiku can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude 3 Haiku

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Llama 3.1 405B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude 3 Haiku is licensed under a proprietary license, while Llama 3.1 405B Instruct uses Llama 3.1 Community License.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Claude 3 Haiku

Proprietary

Closed source

Llama 3.1 405B Instruct

Llama 3.1 Community License

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude 3 Haiku was released on 2024-03-13, while Llama 3.1 405B Instruct was released on 2024-07-23.

Llama 3.1 405B Instruct is 4 months newer than Claude 3 Haiku.

Claude 3 Haiku

Mar 13, 2024

2.5 years ago

Llama 3.1 405B Instruct

Jul 23, 2024

2.1 years ago

4mo newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

Claude 3 Haiku is available from Anthropic, Bedrock, Google. Llama 3.1 405B Instruct is available from Lambda, DeepInfra, Fireworks, Bedrock, Together, Hyperbolic, Google, Replicate.

Claude 3 Haiku

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $0.25/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.25/1M
bedrock logo
AWS Bedrock
Input Price:Input: $0.25/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.25/1M
google logo
Google
Input Price:Input: $0.25/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.25/1M

Llama 3.1 405B Instruct

lambda logo
Lambda
Input Price:Input: $0.89/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.89/1M
deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $1.79/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.79/1M
fireworks logo
Fireworks
Input Price:Input: $3.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $3.00/1M
bedrock logo
AWS Bedrock
Input Price:Input: $3.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $3.00/1M
together logo
Together
Input Price:Input: $3.50/1MOutput Price:Output: $3.50/1M
hyperbolic logo
Hyperbolic
Input Price:Input: $4.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $4.00/1M
google logo
Google
Input Price:Input: $5.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $16.00/1M
replicate logo
Replicate
Input Price:Input: $9.50/1MOutput Price:Output: $9.50/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude 3 Haiku and Llama 3.1 405B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude 3 Haiku
✓ Preferred
Llama 3.1 405B Instruct
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude 3 Haiku vs Llama 3.1 405B Instruct.

Which is better, Claude 3 Haiku or Llama 3.1 405B Instruct?

Llama 3.1 405B Instruct leads the LLM Stats Score 14.9 to -1.2. Claude 3 Haiku is made by Anthropic and Llama 3.1 405B Instruct is made by Meta. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Claude 3 Haiku compare to Llama 3.1 405B Instruct in benchmarks?

Claude 3 Haiku scores ARC-C: 89.2%, GSM8k: 88.9%, HellaSwag: 85.9%, DROP: 78.4%, HumanEval: 75.9%. Llama 3.1 405B Instruct scores ARC-C: 96.9%, GSM8k: 96.8%, API-Bank: 92.0%, Multilingual MGSM (CoT): 91.6%, HumanEval: 89.0%.

Is Claude 3 Haiku cheaper than Llama 3.1 405B Instruct?

Claude 3 Haiku is 3.6x cheaper for input tokens. Claude 3 Haiku costs $0.25/M input and $1.25/M output via anthropic. Llama 3.1 405B Instruct costs $0.89/M input and $0.89/M output via lambda.

What are the context window sizes for Claude 3 Haiku and Llama 3.1 405B Instruct?

Claude 3 Haiku supports 200K tokens and Llama 3.1 405B Instruct supports 128K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude 3 Haiku and Llama 3.1 405B Instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (-1.2 vs 14.9), context window (200K vs 128K), input pricing ($0.25 vs $0.89/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs Llama 3.1 Community License). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude 3 Haiku and Llama 3.1 405B Instruct?

Claude 3 Haiku is developed by Anthropic and Llama 3.1 405B Instruct is developed by Meta.

Related comparisons