Llama 3.1 8B Instruct vs GPT-5 Mini
At a Glance
| Compare |  GPT-5 MiniOpenAI | |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort | #45 of 460.0 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing LiveBench · full-core range 0.0–33.4 |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.050Openrouter ↗ · Sep 23, 2026 | $0.125Openrouter ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.080Openrouter ↗ · Sep 23, 2026 | $1.00Openrouter ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 131K | 400K |
| 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-3.1-8B-Instruct | GPT-5 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboardv4-ede5081a24bc · overall_accuracy · leader | 25.8393% of row best · percent · Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct (Prompt) | 27.83100% of row best · percent · GPT-5-mini-2025-08-07 (Prompt) |
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,186.4886% of row best · rating · llama-3.1-8b-instruct; 95% CI [1182.38141125, 1190.58254982]; votes 49605; rank 313 | 1,372.96100% of row best · rating · gpt-5-mini-high; 95% CI [1368.38533638, 1377.53632183]; votes 26569; rank 166 |
| ToneBench2026-09-11-10-task-4ef099199c9c · overall_score · unverified | 47.9263% of row best · points · Llama 3.1 8B · 1,165 output tokens / case | 76.07100% of row best · points · GPT-5 mini · 3,925 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 0 benchmark wins | 2 benchmark winsOverall lead |
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-3.1-8B-Instruct | GPT-5 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Meta | OpenAI |
| Family | Llama 3 1 8b Instruct | Gpt 5 |
| Model | Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct | GPT-5 Mini |
| Version | Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct | GPT-5 Mini |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2024-07-23 | 2025-08-07 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | 2024-05-31 |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 131K | 400K |
| Total parameters | 8B | Unknown |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | llama3.1 | Unknown |
| Open weights | Yes | No |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | No |
| Provider access | Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) | Openai (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools |
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct Capabilities
GPT-5 Mini 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 8B Instruct vs GPT-5 Mini FAQs
Is Llama 3.1 8B Instruct or GPT-5 Mini better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and GPT-5 Mini, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct or GPT-5 Mini?+
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is $0.050 and GPT-5 Mini is $0.125 per million tokens, so Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is cheaper on this metric. Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is $0.080 and GPT-5 Mini is $1.00 per million tokens, so Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct or GPT-5 Mini?+
GPT-5 Mini has the larger sourced context window. Llama 3.1 8B Instruct supports 131K and GPT-5 Mini supports 400K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct or GPT-5 Mini?+
GPT-5 Mini leads the current overall benchmark count. The result uses 2 protocol-matched benchmarks from 2 publishers; it is not a universal quality score.
Can Llama 3.1 8B Instruct or GPT-5 Mini be self-hosted?+
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is open weight; GPT-5 Mini is not marked open weight.
Can Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and GPT-5 Mini understand images?+
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is not documented with image input; GPT-5 Mini is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct or GPT-5 Mini?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is — and GPT-5 Mini is 128K.
Do Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and GPT-5 Mini support reasoning and tool use?+
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct: tool calling. GPT-5 Mini: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct or GPT-5 Mini?+
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct has 2 sourced provider routes; GPT-5 Mini has 2, a tie.
Which offers better value, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct or GPT-5 Mini?+
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.