+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Llama 4 Scout
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct leads with 4.3% higher average benchmark score. Llama 4 Scout offers 19.7M more tokens in context window than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct. Both models have similar pricing. Llama 4 Scout supports multimodal inputs. Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is available on 9 providers. Both models have their strengths depending on your specific coding needs.
+
+
+
+
Meta
Llama 3.3 70B was introduced with refinements to the Llama 3 architecture, designed to incorporate improvements in instruction-following and task performance. Built to continue the evolution of Meta's 70B tier, it provides enhanced quality while maintaining the deployment characteristics valued by the open-source community.
+
+
+
+
Meta
Llama 4 Scout was created as an exploratory variant in the Llama 4 family, designed to investigate new architectures and optimization strategies. Built as part of Meta's commitment to advancing open-source AI, it serves as a testbed for innovations that may inform future model releases.
4 months newer
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Meta
2024-12-06
Llama 4 Scout
Meta
2025-04-05
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Pricing Comparison
Cost per million tokens (USD)
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Input:$0.20
Output:$0.20
+
+
+
+
Llama 4 Scout
Input:$0.08
Output:$0.30($0.02 cheaper)
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 5 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Average Score:74.7%(+4.3%)
+
+
+
+
Llama 4 Scout
Average Score:70.4%
Provider Availability & Performance
Available providers and their performance metrics
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
9 providers
Bedrock
Throughput: 100 tok/s
Latency: 0.5ms
Cerebras
Throughput: 2220 tok/s
Latency: 0.65ms
DeepInfra
Throughput: 37 tok/s
Latency: 0.65ms
Fireworks
Throughput: 197 tok/s
Latency: 0.65ms
Groq
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Avg Score:74.7%(+4.3%)
Providers:9
+
+
+
+
Llama 4 Scout
Avg Score:70.4%
Providers:6