Llama 3.1 70B Instruct vs Inkling
At a Glance
| Compare | InklingThinking Machines Lab | |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort | #34 of 4645.4 score · 3/3 sources · complete |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | UnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort | #18 of 44$0.090 per LiveBench case |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5 | UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort | #28 of 3848.1 score · 3/3 sources · complete |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.40Openrouter ↗ · Sep 23, 2026 | $0.95Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 23, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.40Openrouter ↗ · Sep 23, 2026 | $4.05Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 23, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 131K | 1,049K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 28, 2026View model evidence → | Sep 3, 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
| Benchmark | Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct | Inkling |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,260.8188% of row best · rating · llama-3.1-70b-instruct; 95% CI [1257.09857551, 1264.52491700]; votes 55240; rank 276 | 1,439.68100% of row best · rating · inkling; 95% CI [1434.76600975, 1444.58550789]; votes 25922; rank 67 |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 0 benchmark winsNo overall winner | 1 benchmark winNo overall winner |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct | Inkling |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Meta | Thinking Machines Lab |
| Family | Llama 3 1 70b Instruct | Inkling |
| Model | Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct | Inkling |
| Version | Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct | Inkling |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2024-07-23 | 2026-07-15 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image, Video, Audio |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 131K | 1,049K |
| Total parameters | 70.6B | 975B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | 41B |
| License | llama3.1 | apache-2.0 |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Provider access | Openrouter (Standard) | Deepinfra (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, tools | agents, chat, coding, generation, reasoning, tools, vision |
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct Capabilities
Inkling Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext | |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
 Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
 DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peerstext | |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext | |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct vs Inkling FAQs
Is Llama 3.1 70B Instruct or Inkling better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Inkling, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct or Inkling?+
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is $0.40 and Inkling is $0.95 per million tokens, so Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is cheaper on this metric. Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is $0.40 and Inkling is $4.05 per million tokens, so Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct or Inkling?+
Inkling has the larger sourced context window. Llama 3.1 70B Instruct supports 131K and Inkling supports 1,049K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct or Inkling?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Llama 3.1 70B Instruct or Inkling be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is open weight; Inkling is open weight.
Can Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Inkling understand images?+
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is not documented with image input; Inkling is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct or Inkling?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is — and Inkling is —.
Do Llama 3.1 70B Instruct and Inkling support reasoning and tool use?+
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct: tool calling. Inkling: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct or Inkling?+
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct has 1 sourced provider route; Inkling has 4, so Inkling has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct or Inkling?+
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.