The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct

Gemini 2.0 Flash and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct are closely matched at 16.7 and 14.0 on the LLM Stats Score. Gemini 2.0 Flash is 1.1x cheaper per token.

Google · Meta · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Gemini 2.0 Flash and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 16.7 and 14.0.

In the 3 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Gemini 2.0 Flash wins 3; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, Gemini 2.0 Flash is roughly 1.1x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Gemini 2.0 Flash also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 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 Gemini 2.0 Flash

  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 3 of 3 exact shared results
  • cost matters — it's about 1.1x cheaper per token
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window

Choose Llama 3.3 70B Instruct

  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Dec 2024
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Gemini 2.0 Flash
Google
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Meta
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
16.7
#204
14.0
#226
Reasoning
16.1
#204
11.9
#236
Coding
1.8
#216
9.4
#161
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
3 of 3
0 of 3
Input price
$0.10 / M
$0.20 / M
Output price
$0.40 / M
$0.20 / M
Context window
1,048,576
128,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Gemini 2.0 Flash
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Math
23.6#121
17.7#183
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

13 reported for Gemini 2.0 Flash · 9 for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct

3 shared

Gemini 2.0 Flash outperforms in 3 benchmarks (GPQA, MATH, MMLU-Pro), while Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is better at 0 benchmarks.

Gemini 2.0 Flash 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

Gemini 2.0 Flash costs less

For input processing, Gemini 2.0 Flash ($0.10/1M tokens) is 2.0x cheaper than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct ($0.20/1M tokens).

For output processing, Gemini 2.0 Flash ($0.40/1M tokens) is 2.0x more expensive than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct ($0.20/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is more expensive than Gemini 2.0 Flash.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Mon Aug 31 2026 • llm-stats.com
Google
Gemini 2.0 Flash
Input tokens$0.10
Output tokens$0.40
Best providerGoogle
Meta
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Input tokens$0.20
Output tokens$0.20
Best providerLambda
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Gemini 2.0 Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Llama 3.3 70B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Llama 3.3 70B Instruct can generate longer responses up to 128,000 tokens, while Gemini 2.0 Flash is limited to 8,192 tokens.

Google
Gemini 2.0 Flash
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output8,192 tokens
Meta
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Mon Aug 31 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Gemini 2.0 Flash supports multimodal inputs, whereas Llama 3.3 70B Instruct does not.

Gemini 2.0 Flash can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Gemini 2.0 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemini 2.0 Flash is licensed under a proprietary license, while Llama 3.3 70B Instruct uses Llama 3.3 Community License Agreement.

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

Gemini 2.0 Flash

Proprietary

Closed source

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct

Llama 3.3 Community License Agreement

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemini 2.0 Flash was released on 2024-12-01, while Llama 3.3 70B Instruct was released on 2024-12-06.

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 0 month newer than Gemini 2.0 Flash.

Gemini 2.0 Flash

Dec 1, 2024

1.7 years ago

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct

Dec 6, 2024

1.7 years ago

5d newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Gemini 2.0 Flash has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2024-08-01, while Llama 3.3 70B Instruct's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Gemini 2.0 Flash's training data extends to 2024-08-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without Llama 3.3 70B Instruct's cutoff date.

Gemini 2.0 Flash

Aug 2024

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct

—

Provider Availability

Gemini 2.0 Flash is available from Google. Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is available from Lambda, DeepInfra, Hyperbolic, Groq, Sambanova, Cerebras, Bedrock, Together, Fireworks.

Gemini 2.0 Flash

google logo
Google
Input Price:Input: $0.10/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.40/1M

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct

lambda logo
Lambda
Input Price:Input: $0.20/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.20/1M
deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.23/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.40/1M
hyperbolic logo
Hyperbolic
Input Price:Input: $0.40/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.40/1M
groq logo
Groq
Input Price:Input: $0.59/1MOutput Price:Output: $7.90/1M
sambanova logo
Sambanova
Input Price:Input: $0.60/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M
cerebras logo
Cerebras
Input Price:Input: $0.70/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.80/1M
bedrock logo
AWS Bedrock
Input Price:Input: $0.72/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.72/1M
together logo
Together
Input Price:Input: $0.88/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.88/1M
fireworks logo
Fireworks
Input Price:Input: $0.89/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.89/1M
* 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 Gemini 2.0 Flash and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Gemini 2.0 Flash
✓ Preferred
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct.

Which is better, Gemini 2.0 Flash or Llama 3.3 70B Instruct?

Gemini 2.0 Flash and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct are closely matched on the LLM Stats Score at 16.7 and 14.0. Gemini 2.0 Flash is made by Google and Llama 3.3 70B 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 Gemini 2.0 Flash compare to Llama 3.3 70B Instruct in benchmarks?

Gemini 2.0 Flash scores Natural2Code: 92.9%, MATH: 89.7%, FACTS Grounding: 83.6%, MMLU-Pro: 76.4%, EgoSchema: 71.5%. Llama 3.3 70B Instruct scores IFEval: 92.1%, MGSM: 91.1%, HumanEval: 88.4%, MBPP EvalPlus: 87.6%, MMLU: 86.0%.

Is Gemini 2.0 Flash cheaper than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct?

Gemini 2.0 Flash is 2.0x cheaper for input tokens. Gemini 2.0 Flash costs $0.10/M input and $0.40/M output via google. Llama 3.3 70B Instruct costs $0.20/M input and $0.20/M output via lambda.

What are the context window sizes for Gemini 2.0 Flash and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct?

Gemini 2.0 Flash supports 1.0M tokens and Llama 3.3 70B 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 Gemini 2.0 Flash and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (16.7 vs 14.0), context window (1.0M vs 128K), input pricing ($0.10 vs $0.20/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs Llama 3.3 Community License Agreement). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Gemini 2.0 Flash and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct?

Gemini 2.0 Flash is developed by Google and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is developed by Meta.

Related comparisons