Granite 4.1 30B vs Llama 3.1 70B
At a Glance
| Compare |  Llama 3.1 70BMeta | |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 131K | 131K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 28, 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 | granite-4.1-30b | Llama-3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | IBM | Meta |
| Family | Granite 4 1 30b | Llama 3 1 70b |
| Model | granite-4.1-30b | Llama-3.1-70B |
| Version | granite-4.1-30b | Llama-3.1-70B |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-04-29 | 2024-07-23 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 131K | 131K |
| Total parameters | 28.9B | 70.6B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | apache-2.0 | llama3.1 |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| API available | Unknown | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Provider access | Unknown | Hugging Face (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, tools | generation |
Granite 4.1 30B Capabilities
Llama 3.1 70B Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| vs | family variantstext | ||
| vs | cross-developer peerstext | ||
| vs | family variantstext | ||
| vs | family variantstext | ||
| vs | family variantstext | ||
| vs | cross-developer peerstext | ||
| vs | cross-developer peerstext | ||
| vs | Muse Glimmer 30BMeta | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | cross-developer peerstext | ||
| vs | cross-developer peerstext | ||
| vs |  gpt-oss-20bOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Granite 4.1 30B vs Llama 3.1 70B FAQs
Is Granite 4.1 30B or Llama 3.1 70B better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Granite 4.1 30B and Llama 3.1 70B, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Granite 4.1 30B or Llama 3.1 70B?+
Neither model has a directly sourced input price in this comparison. Neither model has a directly sourced output price in this comparison.
Which has a larger context window, Granite 4.1 30B or Llama 3.1 70B?+
Both models have the same sourced context window: 131,072 tokens each.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Granite 4.1 30B or Llama 3.1 70B?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Granite 4.1 30B or Llama 3.1 70B be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same sourced self-hosting status: supported. Granite 4.1 30B is open weight; Llama 3.1 70B is open weight.
Can Granite 4.1 30B and Llama 3.1 70B understand images?+
Granite 4.1 30B is not documented with image input; Llama 3.1 70B is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Granite 4.1 30B or Llama 3.1 70B?+
Neither model has a sourced maximum output in this comparison, so a larger limit cannot be determined.
Do Granite 4.1 30B and Llama 3.1 70B support reasoning and tool use?+
Granite 4.1 30B: tool calling. Llama 3.1 70B: none of these features are definitively sourced. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Granite 4.1 30B or Llama 3.1 70B?+
Granite 4.1 30B has 0 sourced provider routes; Llama 3.1 70B has 1, so Llama 3.1 70B has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Granite 4.1 30B or Llama 3.1 70B?+
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.