InferenceRate Live Token Economics
Compare Cost
Home / Compare / Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Llama 4 Maverick

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Llama 4 Maverick

Live Unit Economics, Prompt Cache Pricing, TTFT Latency & Multi-Benchmark Analysis

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct Specs → Llama 4 Maverick Specs →
🔄 Pivot Matchup:
VS
💰 Unit Cost Winner Llama 3.3 70B Instruct $0.12/1M in · $0.30/1M out
⚡ Latency & Speed Winner Llama 4 Maverick 135ms TTFT · 175 tok/s
💻 Coding (SWE) Winner Llama 4 Maverick 62.4% SWE-bench · 92.6% HumanEval
🧠 STEM Reasoning Winner Llama 4 Maverick 73.8% GPQA · 91% MATH-500

Which model is better: Llama 3.3 70B Instruct or Llama 4 Maverick?

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 40.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.20 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $0.60 for output tokens (1.7x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 4 Maverick delivers lower response latency at 135ms TTFT (10ms faster than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct) with 175 vs. 165 tok/s throughput. Llama 4 Maverick leads coding evaluations at 62.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 73.8% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Verified daily via automated API latency tests and official documentation.

Verified Performance & Unit Economics Delta (12 Dimensions)

Daily synchronized metrics across token pricing, prompt cache economics, latency, throughput, and 5 capability benchmarks.

Metric / Dimension Llama 3.3 70B Instruct Llama 4 Maverick Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens $0.12 $0.20 Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 1.7x cheaper
Output Cost / 1M Tokens $0.30 $0.60 Llama 3.3 70B Instruct (50.0% lower)
Prompt Cache Read / 1M $0.030 $0.050 Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 1.7x cheaper
Prompt Cache Write / 1M $0.12 $0.20 Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 1.7x cheaper
Context Window (Max Output) 131k (33k out) 1,049k (33k out) Llama 4 Maverick (8.0x larger context)
Avg TTFT Response Latency 145ms 135ms Llama 4 Maverick (10ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput) 165 tok/s 175 tok/s Llama 4 Maverick (+10 tok/s faster)
SWE-bench Verified (Coding) 42.5% 62.4% Llama 4 Maverick (+19.9% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM) 55.6% 73.8% Llama 4 Maverick (+18.2% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline) 76.8% 84.5% Llama 4 Maverick (+7.7% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic) 77% 91% Llama 4 Maverick (+14.0% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR) 74.6 / 100 77 / 100 Llama 4 Maverick (+2.4 pts)

Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster

Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.

25.0M Tokens
500K 50M 250M 500M+
5.0M Tokens
100K 25M 75M 150M+
50% Cached
0% (Uncached) 25% 50% (Typical Agent) 95% Max

Estimated Monthly Spend

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct $3.38

$0.12/1M in · $0.30/1M out

Prompt Cache: $0.030/1M read · $0.12/1M write

Llama 4 Maverick $6.13

$0.20/1M in · $0.60/1M out

Prompt Cache: $0.050/1M read · $0.20/1M write

Projected Monthly Cost Reduction
$2.75 / mo
(44.9% lower cost with Llama 3.3 70B Instruct)
Open Full Matchup Analysis →
A

When to Choose Llama 3.3 70B Instruct

Choose Llama 3.3 70B Instruct (Meta) for cost-optimized on-premise deployments, fast text transformation, structured entity extraction, and enterprise dialogue pipelines — offering a 131k context window, 145ms TTFT, and $0.12/1M input pricing ($0.030/1M cached reads).

Explore all Llama 3.3 70B Instruct provider endpoints →
B

When to Choose Llama 4 Maverick

Choose Llama 4 Maverick (Meta) for high-throughput open-weight multimodal assistants, enterprise RAG, and low-cost cloud inference on Groq and Cerebras — offering a 1,048k context window, 135ms TTFT, and $0.20/1M input pricing ($0.050/1M cached reads).

Explore all Llama 4 Maverick provider endpoints →

Related Questions & Decision Factors

Which is cheaper: Llama 3.3 70B Instruct or Llama 4 Maverick?

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is cheaper at $0.12/1M input tokens ($0.30/1M output) compared to $0.20/1M input ($0.60/1M output) for Llama 4 Maverick.

Which model has lower TTFT latency and higher tok/s throughput: Llama 3.3 70B Instruct or Llama 4 Maverick?

Llama 4 Maverick delivers faster first-token latency at 135ms TTFT (175 tok/s throughput) compared to 145ms TTFT (165 tok/s) for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct.

How do Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and Llama 4 Maverick compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?

On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct scores 42.5% versus 62.4% for Llama 4 Maverick. On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct scores 55.6% versus 73.8% for Llama 4 Maverick (and 77% vs 91% on MATH-500).

When should you choose Llama 3.3 70B Instruct?

Choose Llama 3.3 70B Instruct (Meta) for cost-optimized on-premise deployments, fast text transformation, structured entity extraction, and enterprise dialogue pipelines — offering a 131k context window, 145ms TTFT, and $0.12/1M input pricing ($0.030/1M cached reads).

When should you choose Llama 4 Maverick?

Choose Llama 4 Maverick (Meta) for high-throughput open-weight multimodal assistants, enterprise RAG, and low-cost cloud inference on Groq and Cerebras — offering a 1,048k context window, 135ms TTFT, and $0.20/1M input pricing ($0.050/1M cached reads).

Explore High-Priority Related Model Matchups

Gemini 4 Argon vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct cheaper Δ 12 IVR →
Gemini 4 Argon vs Llama 4 Maverick
Llama 4 Maverick cheaper Δ 14.4 IVR →
Claude 4.5 Sonnet vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct cheaper Δ 18.1 IVR →
Claude 4.5 Sonnet vs Llama 4 Maverick
Llama 4 Maverick cheaper Δ 20.5 IVR →
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct cheaper Δ 16.8 IVR →
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Llama 4 Maverick
Llama 4 Maverick cheaper Δ 19.2 IVR →