Qwen3.5 397B A17B vs Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
At a Glance
| Compare | ||
|---|---|---|
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.45Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 23, 2026 | $0.40Openrouter ↗ · Sep 23, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $3.00Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 23, 2026 | $0.40Openrouter ↗ · Sep 23, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 262K | 131K |
| 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 | Qwen3.5-397B-A17B | Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,438.26100% of row best · rating · qwen3.5-397b-a17b; 95% CI [1434.97391785, 1441.55191176]; votes 77007; rank 71 | 1,260.8188% of row best · rating · llama-3.1-70b-instruct; 95% CI [1257.09857551, 1264.52491700]; votes 55240; rank 276 |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 1 benchmark winNo overall winner | 0 benchmark winsNo 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 | Qwen3.5-397B-A17B | Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Qwen | Meta |
| Family | Qwen3 5 397b A17b | Llama 3 1 70b Instruct |
| Model | Qwen3.5-397B-A17B | Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct |
| Version | Qwen3.5-397B-A17B | Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-02-15 | 2024-07-23 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 262K | 131K |
| Total parameters | 403.4B | 70.6B |
| Active parameters | 17B | Unknown |
| License | apache-2.0 | llama3.1 |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Provider access | Deepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) | Openrouter (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | chat, generation, tools |
Qwen3.5 397B A17B Capabilities
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text | |
| vs | Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | cross-developer peersimage, text | |
| vs |  Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | cross-developer peersimage, text | |
| vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text | |
| vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | family variantsimage, text | |
| vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text | |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | cross-developer peersimage, text | |
| vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | cross-developer peersimage, text | |
| vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Qwen3.5 397B A17B vs Llama 3.1 70B Instruct FAQs
Is Qwen3.5 397B A17B or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Qwen3.5 397B A17B 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, Qwen3.5 397B A17B or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?+
Qwen3.5 397B A17B is $0.45 and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is $0.40 per million tokens, so Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is cheaper on this metric. Qwen3.5 397B A17B is $3.00 and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is $0.40 per million tokens, so Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Qwen3.5 397B A17B or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?+
Qwen3.5 397B A17B has the larger sourced context window. Qwen3.5 397B A17B supports 262K and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct supports 131K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Qwen3.5 397B A17B 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 Qwen3.5 397B A17B or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. Qwen3.5 397B A17B is open weight; Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is open weight.
Can Qwen3.5 397B A17B and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct understand images?+
Qwen3.5 397B A17B 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, Qwen3.5 397B A17B or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Qwen3.5 397B A17B is — and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is —.
Do Qwen3.5 397B A17B and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct support reasoning and tool use?+
Qwen3.5 397B A17B: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Llama 3.1 70B Instruct: tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Qwen3.5 397B A17B or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?+
Qwen3.5 397B A17B has 4 sourced provider routes; Llama 3.1 70B Instruct has 1, so Qwen3.5 397B A17B has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Qwen3.5 397B A17B 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.