Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Meta-llama
Meta-llama
vs
Minimax
Minimax

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct vs MiniMax M2.5

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

OpenClaw

Best LLMs for OpenClaw Vote for which model works best with OpenClaw

112 out of our 301 tracked models have had a price change in February.

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

Key Takeaways

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct wins:

  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Better at math
  • Supports tool calls

MiniMax M2.5 wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Larger context window
  • Faster response time
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding
Price Advantage
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Benchmark Advantage
MiniMax M2.5
Context Window
MiniMax M2.5
Speed
MiniMax M2.5

Pricing Comparison

Price Comparison

MetricLlama 3.1 70B InstructMiniMax M2.5Winner
Input (per 1M tokens)$0.40$0.30 MiniMax M2.5
Output (per 1M tokens)$0.40$1.20 Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Cache Read (per 1M)N/A$30000.00 MiniMax M2.5
Using a 3:1 input/output ratio, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is 24% cheaper overall.

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct Providers

Novita $0.34 (Cheapest)
Hyperbolic $0.40
DeepInfra $0.40
Together $0.88

MiniMax M2.5 Providers

Minimax $0.30 (Cheapest)
Novita $0.30 (Cheapest)

Benchmark Comparison

8
Benchmarks Compared
0
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct Wins
3
MiniMax M2.5 Wins

Benchmark Scores

BenchmarkLlama 3.1 70B InstructMiniMax M2.5Winner
Intelligence Index
Overall intelligence score
12.242.0
Coding Index
Code generation & understanding
10.937.4
Math Index
Mathematical reasoning
4.0--
MMLU Pro
Academic knowledge
67.6--
GPQA
Graduate-level science
40.984.8
LiveCodeBench
Competitive programming
23.2--
Aider
Real-world code editing
58.6--
AIME
Competition math
17.3--
MiniMax M2.5 significantly outperforms in coding benchmarks.

Cost vs Quality

X-axis:
Y-axis:
Loading chart...
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Other models

Context & Performance

Context Window

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
131,072
tokens
MiniMax M2.5
204,800
tokens
Max output: 131,072 tokens
MiniMax M2.5 has a 36% larger context window.

Speed Performance

MetricLlama 3.1 70B InstructMiniMax M2.5Winner
Tokens/second42.8 tok/s71.0 tok/s
Time to First Token0.46s1.67s
MiniMax M2.5 responds 66% faster on average.

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureLlama 3.1 70B InstructMiniMax M2.5
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyLlama 3.1 70B InstructMiniMax M2.5
LicenseOpen SourceProprietary
AuthorMeta-llamaMinimax
ReleasedJul 2024Feb 2026

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

MiniMax M2.5 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare Llama 3.1 70B Instruct with:

Compare MiniMax M2.5 with:

Frequently Asked Questions

MiniMax M2.5 has cheaper input pricing at $0.30/M tokens. Llama 3.1 70B Instruct has cheaper output pricing at $0.40/M tokens.
MiniMax M2.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 37.4, compared to Llama 3.1 70B Instruct's score of 10.9.
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct has a 131,072 token context window, while MiniMax M2.5 has a 204,800 token context window.
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct does not support vision. MiniMax M2.5 does not support vision.