Llama 3.1 405B vs Bonsai 27B

At a Glance

Compare
Bonsai 27BPrismML
Pricing and Limits
Context windowMaximum documented tokens131K262K
Model facts checkedAug 28, 2026View model evidence →Sep 18, 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

All benchmark results →
No Protocol-Matched Benchmark Yet.Results appear here only when both models share the same benchmark version, metric, evaluation protocol, and evidence class.

Side-by-Side Facts

FieldLlama-3.1-405BBonsai 27B
DeveloperMetaPrismML
FamilyLlama 3 1 405bBonsai 27b
ModelLlama-3.1-405BBonsai 27B
VersionLlama-3.1-405BBonsai 27B
Lifecycleactiveactive
Released2024-07-232026-07-04
Knowledge cutoffUnknownUnknown
Input modalitiesTextText, Image
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window131K262K
Total parameters405.9B27B
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
Licensellama3.1apache-2.0
Open weightsYesYes
API availableYesNo
Self-hostableYesYes
Provider accessTogether Ai (Standard)Unknown
Capabilitiesgenerationchat, generation, reasoning, tools, vision
Base modelUnknownQwen3.6 27B
Effective bit widthUnknown1 bit per weight
Language model sizeUnknown3.53 GiB
Weight formatUnknownBinary Q1_0

Llama 3.1 405B Capabilities

generation
Serving providers1
Canonical IDmeta-llama/Llama-3.1-405B

Bonsai 27B Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtoolsvision
Serving providers0
Canonical IDprism-ml/Bonsai-27B

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Llama 3.1 405B vs Bonsai 27B FAQs

Is Llama 3.1 405B or Bonsai 27B better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Llama 3.1 405B and Bonsai 27B, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.1 405B or Bonsai 27B?+

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, Llama 3.1 405B or Bonsai 27B?+

Bonsai 27B has the larger sourced context window. Llama 3.1 405B supports 131K and Bonsai 27B supports 262K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Llama 3.1 405B or Bonsai 27B?+

There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.

Can Llama 3.1 405B or Bonsai 27B be self-hosted?+

Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. Llama 3.1 405B is open weight; Bonsai 27B is open weight.

Can Llama 3.1 405B and Bonsai 27B understand images?+

Llama 3.1 405B is not documented with image input; Bonsai 27B is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Llama 3.1 405B or Bonsai 27B?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Llama 3.1 405B is — and Bonsai 27B is —.

Do Llama 3.1 405B and Bonsai 27B support reasoning and tool use?+

Llama 3.1 405B: none of these features are definitively sourced. Bonsai 27B: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Llama 3.1 405B or Bonsai 27B?+

Llama 3.1 405B has 1 sourced provider route; Bonsai 27B has 0, so Llama 3.1 405B has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Llama 3.1 405B or Bonsai 27B?+

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.

Send Feedback