Llama 3.1 8B Instruct vs Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct
At a Glance
| Compare | ||
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v4.4 | UnrankedNot in the 57-model eligible cohort | #43 of 570.0 score · 1/3 sources · single-source provisional · missing LiveBench, ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 0.0–66.7 |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.050Openrouter ↗ · Oct 19, 2026 | $0.1875Openrouter ↗ · Oct 19, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.080Openrouter ↗ · Oct 19, 2026 | $0.6525Openrouter ↗ · Oct 19, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 131K | 1,000K |
| 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
| Benchmark | Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct | Llama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-10-15-a64ca3b12b6e · arena_rating · leader | 1,186.5492% of row best · rating · llama-3.1-8b-instruct; 95% CI [1182.43982822, 1190.63886318]; votes 49605; rank 327 | 1,287.19100% of row best · rating · llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct; 95% CI [1282.93484207, 1291.44351277]; votes 39450; rank 261 |
| 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-3.1-8B-Instruct | Llama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Meta | Meta |
| Family | Llama 3 1 8b Instruct | Llama 4 Maverick 17b 128e Instruct |
| Model | Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct | Llama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-Instruct |
| Version | Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct | Llama-4-Maverick-17B-128E-Instruct |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2024-07-23 | 2025-04-05 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 131K | 1,000K |
| Total parameters | 8B | 401.6B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | 17B |
| License | llama3.1 | other |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Provider access | Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) | Openrouter (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, tools | chat, generation, tools |
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct Capabilities
Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
 Bolmo 7BAi2 | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | cross-developer peerstext | ||
| vs | cross-developer peerstext | ||
| vs | cross-developer peerstext | ||
| vs | cross-developer peerstext | ||
| vs | cross-developer peerstext | ||
| vs | cross-developer peerstext | ||
| vs | family variantstext | ||
 Llama-3.1-8BMeta | vs | family variantstext | |
| vs | family variantstext | ||
| vs |  Ministral-8B-Instruct-2410Mistral AI | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct vs Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct FAQs
Is Llama 3.1 8B Instruct or Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct, 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 Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct?+
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is $0.050 and Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is $0.1875 per million tokens, so Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is cheaper on this metric. Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is $0.080 and Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is $0.6525 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 Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct?+
Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct has the larger sourced context window. Llama 3.1 8B Instruct supports 131,072 tokens and Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct supports 1,000,000 tokens.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct or Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Llama 3.1 8B Instruct or Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same sourced self-hosting status: supported. Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is open weight; Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is open weight.
Can Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct understand images?+
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is not documented with image input; Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct or Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct?+
Neither model has a sourced maximum output in this comparison, so a larger limit cannot be determined.
Do Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct support reasoning and tool use?+
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct: tool calling. Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct: 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 Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct?+
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct has 2 sourced provider routes; Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E Instruct has 1, so Llama 3.1 8B Instruct has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct or Llama 4 Maverick 17B 128E 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.