Llama 3.1 70B vs Claude 3 Opus
Head-to-head specifications
| Metric | Llama 3.1 70B | Claude 3 Opus | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU (general capability) | 86.0% | 86.8% | -0.8% |
| Context window | 128K tokens | 200K tokens | — |
| Price (input / output per 1M) | Open weights | $15 / $75 | — |
| Access | Open weights | Proprietary API | — |
- Claude 3 Opus leads general capability (MMLU 86.8% vs 86.0%).
- Claude 3 Opus offers the larger context window, useful for long documents and codebases.
Verdict: Llama 3.1 70B or Claude 3 Opus?
Llama 3.1 70B advantages
- No decisive advantage on the tracked metrics.
Claude 3 Opus advantages
- Context window (+36%)
Which should you choose?
- Choose the Claude 3 Opus if you work with long documents or large codebases.
Value for money
Llama 3.1 70B is open-weight and can be self-hosted, which can dramatically lower cost at scale versus a per-token API.
Llama 3.1 70B vs Claude 3 Opus: which should you choose?
Llama 3.1 70B — Meta large language model (2024) with a 128K-token context window and an MMLU score of 86.0%, released with open weights.
Claude 3 Opus — Anthropic large language model (2024) with a 200K-token context window and an MMLU score of 86.8%.
Llama 3.1 70B vs Claude 3 Opus: Claude 3 Opus scores higher on the MMLU benchmark. Claude 3 Opus leads general capability (MMLU 86.8% vs 86.0%). Claude 3 Opus offers the larger context window, useful for long documents and codebases.
Capability and reasoning
On MMLU — a 57-subject benchmark of general knowledge and reasoning — the Claude 3 Opus scores 86.8% versus 86.0%. MMLU is a useful proxy for raw knowledge but does not capture instruction-following, coding, tool use, latency or safety, so treat it as one signal among several.
Context window
The Claude 3 Opus handles up to 200K tokens per request, which sets how much documentation, transcript or code it can reason over at once — decisive for retrieval-augmented and long-document workflows.
Pricing and access
Llama 3.1 70B is open weights and Claude 3 Opus is proprietary api. Proprietary models bill per token via API; open-weight models can be self-hosted, trading per-call cost for infrastructure you manage. For production, weigh throughput, rate limits and data-residency needs alongside headline price.
The verdict
Both are credible choices in the ai model comparison space; the specification table above lays out every metric so you can weigh the trade-offs that matter to you. Pick the one whose strengths line up with how you will actually use it.
Frequently asked questions
Is the Llama 3.1 70B better than the Claude 3 Opus?
Claude 3 Opus is the clearly stronger overall choice, winning most of the dimensions that matter. Claude 3 Opus leads general capability (MMLU 86.8% vs 86.0%).
What is the main difference between the Llama 3.1 70B and the Claude 3 Opus?
Claude 3 Opus leads general capability (MMLU 86.8% vs 86.0%). Claude 3 Opus offers the larger context window, useful for long documents and codebases.
Which is better value?
Llama 3.1 70B is open-weight and can be self-hosted, which can dramatically lower cost at scale versus a per-token API.
Which should I choose?
Choose the Claude 3 Opus if you work with long documents or large codebases.
Methodology
Large language models are compared on the MMLU benchmark (a widely-cited 57-subject test of general knowledge and reasoning, reported as a percentage), maximum context window, and published API pricing per million input and output tokens. Open-weight models can also be self-hosted. Benchmarks capture only part of real-world quality, which also depends on tool use, latency, safety and task fit.