+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Phi-3.5-mini-instruct
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct leads with 26.0% higher average benchmark score. Both models have similar pricing. Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is available on 9 providers. Overall, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is the stronger choice for coding tasks.
+
+
+
+
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.
+
+
+
+
Microsoft
Phi-3.5 Mini was developed by Microsoft as a small language model designed to deliver impressive performance despite its compact size. Built with efficiency in mind, it demonstrates that capable language understanding and generation can be achieved with fewer parameters, making AI more accessible for edge and resource-constrained deployments.
3 months newer
Phi-3.5-mini-instruct
Microsoft
2024-08-23
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Meta
2024-12-06
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Pricing Comparison
Cost per million tokens (USD)
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Input:$0.20
Output:$0.20
+
+
+
+
Phi-3.5-mini-instruct
Input:$0.10
Output:$0.10($0.20 cheaper)
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 6 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Average Score:77.0%(+26.0%)
+
+
+
+
Phi-3.5-mini-instruct
Average Score:51.0%
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:77.0%(+26.0%)
Providers:9
+
+
+
+
Phi-3.5-mini-instruct
Avg Score:51.0%
Providers:1