The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

Claude Opus 5.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 59.7 to 0.4.

Anthropic · NVIDIA · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Opus 5.5 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 59.7 to 0.4, ranking #1 overall.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Claude Opus 5.5

  • overall performance matters — it scores 59.7 and ranks #1 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Opus 5.5
Anthropic
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
NVIDIA
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
59.7
#1
0.4
#330
Reasoning
57.8
#1
0.1
#323
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$4.00 / M
— / M
Output price
$20.00 / M
— / M
Context window
1,000,000
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Claude Opus 5.5
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
Math
42.5#5
7.0#267
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

31 reported for Claude Opus 5.5 · 11 for Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

No common benchmarks found

Claude Opus 5.5 and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instructdon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Claude Opus 5.5 specifies input context (1,000,000 tokens). Only Claude Opus 5.5 specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

Anthropic
Claude Opus 5.5
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
NVIDIA
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Wed Sep 23 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Claude Opus 5.5 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct does not.

Claude Opus 5.5 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude Opus 5.5

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Opus 5.5 is licensed under a proprietary license, while Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct uses Llama 3.1 Community License.

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

Claude Opus 5.5

Proprietary

Closed source

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

Llama 3.1 Community License

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Opus 5.5 was released on 2026-09-22, while Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct was released on 2024-10-01.

Claude Opus 5.5 is 24 months newer than Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct.

Claude Opus 5.5

Sep 22, 2026

0 days ago

2.0yr newer
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

Oct 1, 2024

2.0 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Claude Opus 5.5 has a knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-01, while Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct has a cutoff of 2023-12-01.

Claude Opus 5.5 has more recent training data (up to 2026-06-01), making it potentially better informed about events through that date compared to Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct (2023-12-01).

Claude Opus 5.5

Jun 2026

2.5 yr newer
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

Dec 2023

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Opus 5.5 and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Opus 5.5
✓ Preferred
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Opus 5.5 vs Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct.

Which is better, Claude Opus 5.5 or Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct?

Claude Opus 5.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 59.7 to 0.4. Claude Opus 5.5 is made by Anthropic and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct is made by NVIDIA. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Claude Opus 5.5 compare to Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct in benchmarks?

Claude Opus 5.5 scores BenchCAD (with Python tool): 96.2%, Global-MMLU: 94.3%, SWE-bench Multilingual: 93.9%, MILU: 93.1%, ArXivMath: 91.2%. Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct scores GSM8k: 91.4%, HellaSwag: 85.6%, Winogrande: 84.5%, GSM8K Chat: 81.9%, MMLU Chat: 80.6%.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Opus 5.5 and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct?

Claude Opus 5.5 supports 1.0M tokens and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude Opus 5.5 and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (59.7 vs 0.4), 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 Opus 5.5 and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct?

Claude Opus 5.5 is developed by Anthropic and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct is developed by NVIDIA.

Related comparisons