Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Meta-llama
Meta-llama
vs
Stepfun-ai

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Step 3.5 Flash

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

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

OpenClaw

Deploy OpenClaw in Under 1 Minute We handle hosting, scaling, and maintenance

Key Takeaways

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct wins:

  • Faster response time
  • Better at math

Step 3.5 Flash wins:

  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Larger context window
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding
  • Has reasoning mode
Price Advantage
Step 3.5 Flash
Benchmark Advantage
Step 3.5 Flash
Context Window
Step 3.5 Flash
Speed
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureLlama 3.3 70B InstructStep 3.5 Flash
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyLlama 3.3 70B InstructStep 3.5 Flash
LicenseOpen SourceOpen Source
AuthorMeta-llamaStepfun-ai
ReleasedDec 2024Jan 2026

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Step 3.5 Flash Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare Llama 3.3 70B Instruct with:

Compare Step 3.5 Flash with:

Frequently Asked Questions

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct has cheaper input pricing at $0.10/M tokens. Step 3.5 Flash has cheaper output pricing at $0.30/M tokens.
Step 3.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 31.6, compared to Llama 3.3 70B Instruct's score of 10.7.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct has a 131,072 token context window, while Step 3.5 Flash has a 256,000 token context window.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct does not support vision. Step 3.5 Flash does not support vision.