Claude Opus 5.5 vs Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
At a Glance
| Compare | Claude Opus 5.5Anthropic | |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $4.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 | $0.40Openrouter ↗ · Sep 23, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $20.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 | $0.40Openrouter ↗ · Sep 23, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 1,000K | 131K |
| Model facts checked | Sep 22, 2026View model evidence → | Aug 28, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Claude Opus 5.5 | Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | Meta |
| Family | Claude 5 5 | Llama 3 1 70b Instruct |
| Model | Claude Opus 5.5 | Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct |
| Version | Claude Opus 5.5 | Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2024-07-23 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-06-01 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,000K | 131K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | 70.6B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | llama3.1 |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| Provider access | Anthropic (Standard) | Openrouter (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | chat, generation, tools |
| Message Batches max output (beta) | 300000 tokens | Unknown |
| Default effort | medium | Unknown |
| Retirement commitment | Not sooner than September 22, 2027 | Unknown |
| Thinking | Adaptive (always on) | Unknown |
Claude Opus 5.5 Capabilities
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Claude Opus 5Anthropic | vs | Claude Opus 5.5Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Opus 5.5Anthropic | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Claude Opus 5.5Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Opus 5.5Anthropic | vs |  Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 5.5Anthropic | vs |  DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 5.5Anthropic | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 5.5Anthropic | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 5.5Anthropic | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Claude Opus 5.5Anthropic | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 5.5Anthropic | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 5.5Anthropic | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 5.5Anthropic | vs | Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Llama 3.1 70B Instruct FAQs
Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Opus 5.5 and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?+
Claude Opus 5.5 is $4.00 and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is $0.40 per million tokens, so Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is cheaper on this metric. Claude Opus 5.5 is $20.00 and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is $0.40 per million tokens, so Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Claude Opus 5.5 or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?+
Claude Opus 5.5 has the larger sourced context window. Claude Opus 5.5 supports 1,000K and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct supports 131K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Opus 5.5 or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Claude Opus 5.5 or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct be self-hosted?+
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Claude Opus 5.5 is not marked open weight; Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is open weight.
Can Claude Opus 5.5 and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct understand images?+
Claude Opus 5.5 is documented with image input; Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Claude Opus 5.5 or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Claude Opus 5.5 is 128K and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is —.
Do Claude Opus 5.5 and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct support reasoning and tool use?+
Claude Opus 5.5: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Llama 3.1 70B Instruct: tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Opus 5.5 or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?+
Claude Opus 5.5 has 1 sourced provider route; Llama 3.1 70B Instruct has 1, a tie.
Which offers better value, Claude Opus 5.5 or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.