Lyria 3.5 vs Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
At a Glance
| Compare |  Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | Not reported | $0.40Openrouter ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | Not reported | $0.40Openrouter ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 1,049K | 131K |
| Model facts checked | Sep 22, 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 | Lyria 3.5 | Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Google DeepMind | Meta |
| Family | Lyria | Llama 3 1 70b Instruct |
| Model | Lyria 3.5 | Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct |
| Version | Lyria 3.5 | Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-07-29 | 2024-07-23 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
| Output modalities | Text, Audio | Text |
| Context window | 1,049K | 131K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | 70.6B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | llama3.1 |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| Provider access | Google AI (Standard), Google Gemini (Standard) | Openrouter (Standard) |
| Capabilities | generation, image-to-music, lyrics, music-generation, synthid, vocals | chat, generation, tools |
Lyria 3.5 Capabilities
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | developer peerstext |
 DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | vs | Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Lyria 3.5Google DeepMind | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Lyria 3.5 vs Llama 3.1 70B Instruct FAQs
Is Lyria 3.5 or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Lyria 3.5 and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Lyria 3.5 or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?+
Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct has a directly sourced input price: $0.40 per million tokens. Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct has a directly sourced output price: $0.40 per million tokens.
Which has a larger context window, Lyria 3.5 or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?+
Lyria 3.5 has the larger sourced context window. Lyria 3.5 supports 1,049K and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct supports 131K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Lyria 3.5 or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Lyria 3.5 or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct be self-hosted?+
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Lyria 3.5 is not marked open weight; Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is open weight.
Can Lyria 3.5 and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct understand images?+
Lyria 3.5 is documented with image input; Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Lyria 3.5 or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Lyria 3.5 is 66K and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is —.
Do Lyria 3.5 and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct support reasoning and tool use?+
Lyria 3.5: image input. Llama 3.1 70B Instruct: tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Lyria 3.5 or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?+
Lyria 3.5 has 2 sourced provider routes; Llama 3.1 70B Instruct has 1, so Lyria 3.5 has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Lyria 3.5 or Llama 3.1 70B 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.