Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Anthropic
Anthropic
vs
Nvidia
Nvidia

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

Get our weekly newsletter on pricing changes, new releases, and tools.

Join the Price Per Token Community

Key Takeaways

Claude Opus 4.6 wins:

  • Larger context window
  • Faster response time
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding
  • Supports vision
  • Has reasoning mode

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Better at math
Price Advantage
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
Benchmark Advantage
Claude Opus 4.6
Context Window
Claude Opus 4.6
Speed
Claude Opus 4.6

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureClaude Opus 4.6Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyClaude Opus 4.6Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
LicenseProprietaryProprietary
AuthorAnthropicNvidia
ReleasedFeb 2026Oct 2024

Claude Opus 4.6 Modalities

Input
textimage
Output
text

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Frequently Asked Questions

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct has cheaper input pricing at $0.90/M tokens. Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct has cheaper output pricing at $0.90/M tokens.
Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 47.6, compared to Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct's score of 10.8.
Claude Opus 4.6 has a 1,000,000 token context window, while Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct has a 131,072 token context window.
Claude Opus 4.6 supports vision. Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct does not support vision.