Llama 4 Maverick vs Llama 3.3 70B
Benchmarks, API Token Pricing, Context Window & Speed Comparison
Related topics (12)
Llama 4 Maverick by Meta and Llama 3.3 70B by Meta represent two of the frontier AI models analyzed in our comprehensive 2026 AI benchmark and LLM comparison. In this head-to-head evaluation, we examine API token pricing, context window specifications, inference speed (tokens per second), and empirical reasoning performance. From a pure economic perspective, both models offer identical input token rates. On output generation, costs are matched. In data-heavy architectures requiring extensive repository or document analysis, Llama 4 Maverick provides an expanded memory horizon with 1,000K tokens. In latency-sensitive production environments, Llama 3.3 70B leads in tokens-per-second throughput, making it ideal for real-time conversational agents and high-concurrency workflows. Below is the complete empirical head-to-head breakdown across cost, speed, context, and capability matrices.
Switch & Compare Any Models
Select any AI models from our verified benchmark database to generate live side-by-side matrices.
Llama 4 Maverick
Open MultimodalFlagship open multimodal MoE model delivering frontier intelligence at high serving efficiency.
$0.00 / 1M
$0.00 / 1M
1M tokens
62%
Llama 3.3 70B
Open-Weights TitanMeta's flagship open-weights foundation model delivering performance on par with previous 405B models at a fraction of the compute and hosting cost.
$0.00 / 1M
$0.00 / 1M
128K tokens
39.5%
Key Differences at a Glance
- Llama 4 Maverick is 1.0x cheaper for API usage (input + output tokens combined).
- Llama 4 Maverick has a larger context window (1M vs 128K tokens).
- Llama 3.3 70B is faster at 280 tok/s vs 85 tok/s.
- Llama 4 Maverick leads on SWE-bench coding (62.0% vs 39.5%).
| Feature | Llama 4 Maverick | Llama 3.3 70B |
|---|---|---|
Intelligence Index Composite reasoning & knowledge score (0-100) | 84 | 38 |
Provider | Meta | Meta |
Input Price Cost per million input tokens | $0.00 / 1M | $0.00 / 1M |
Output Price Cost per million output tokens | $0.00 / 1M | $0.00 / 1M |
Blended Price Weighted 7:2:1 cache:input:output per 1M | $0.00 / 1M | $0.07 / 1M |
Context Window Maximum input + output tokens | 1M tokens~1,500 A4 pages of text | 128K tokens~192 A4 pages of text |
Max Output Tokens Per single request | 33K | 4K |
Throughput Speed Tokens generated per second | 85 tok/s | 280 tok/s |
SWE-bench Verified Real-world software engineering | 62% | 39.5% |
GPQA Diamond Graduate-level reasoning | 72.5% | 48.9% |
Cached Input Price Prompt caching discount per 1M tokens | $0.00 / 1M | $0.10 / 1M |
Who Wins Where?
At-a-glance decision frameworkEmpirical Head-to-Head Benchmark Scores
Official evaluation metrics verified by independent third-party research labs.
Industry benchmark evaluating real-world GitHub issue resolution and multi-file debugging.
Challenging questions created by domain experts to test complex PhD-level reasoning.
Hardened reasoning and academic knowledge benchmark with reduced lucky-guess probability.
Crowdsourced human preference evaluation based on blind, head-to-head model battles.
Extremely difficult, closed-ended questions spanning the frontier of human expert knowledge.
Autonomous multi-step tasks executed inside a real command-line terminal environment.
Research-grade coding problems drawn from real scientific and numerical workloads.
Contamination-free competitive programming problems collected continuously over time.
American Invitational Mathematics Examination — multi-step Olympiad-level reasoning.
Accuracy when reasoning over very large inputs that fill the model context window.
Tokens emitted per second during active generation streaming.
Latency & Response Time
Time to first token (TTFT) and estimated end-to-end response time for a typical 500-token response.
Real-Time Interactive Token Cost Simulator
Adjust sliders to calculate projected monthly cloud API spending with prompt caching discounts.
Llama 4 Maverick · Strengths & Key Advantages
- Rivals leading commercial models across coding and STEM
- 1M context window
- Open weights with accessible 17B active parameter routing
Considerations & Trade-offs
- Total weight footprint of 400B requires multi-GPU cluster
- Does not feature extended native chain-of-thought
Llama 3.3 70B · Strengths & Key Advantages
- 100% open-weights allowing full data sovereignty, private hosting, and fine-tuning
- Lightning-fast throughput (up to 280 tok/s on specialized hardware inference providers)
- Economical cloud API pricing ($0.20 input / $0.70 output per million tokens)
- Industry standard for local offline AI and enterprise compliance
Considerations & Trade-offs
- Knowledge cutoff in late 2023 requires RAG for recent events
- Smaller maximum output token generation limit (4K tokens)
Token Use & Task Economics
Estimated cost and token consumption to complete one representative agentic task.
| Metric | Llama 4 Maverick | Llama 3.3 70B |
|---|---|---|
Cost per Task Estimated USD to finish one task | $0.00 | $0.21 |
Output Tokens / Task Tokens generated per task | 15K | 45K |
Reasoning Tokens / Task Thinking tokens burned per task | 0K | 0K |
Technical Specifications
Architecture, release timeline, capabilities, and modalities.
| Feature | Llama 4 Maverick | Llama 3.3 70B |
|---|---|---|
| Official API Model ID (SDK) | meta-llama/Llama-4-Maverick | meta-llama/Llama-3.3-70B |
| API Protocol | OpenAI-Compatible REST / vLLM / SGLang / HuggingFace TGI | OpenAI-Compatible REST / vLLM / SGLang / HuggingFace TGI |
| Release Date | 2025-04 | 2024-12 |
| Knowledge Cutoff | January 2025 | December 2023 |
| Architecture | High-capacity sparse MoE multimodal transformer (17B active / 400B total) | Dense Autoregressive Transformer |
| Parameters | 17B (400B total MoE) | 70B |
| Enterprise Rate Limits (RPM / TPM) | Unlimited (Hardware-bound on self-hosted GPU) / 10,000 RPM Cloud · Unlimited local throughput / 10M+ TPM Managed Cloud | Unlimited (Hardware-bound on self-hosted GPU) / 10,000 RPM Cloud · Unlimited local throughput / 10M+ TPM Managed Cloud |
| Long-Context Tier (>128K/200K) | Free across full context window (only KV-cache VRAM scales) | Free across full context window (only KV-cache VRAM scales) |
| Prompt Cache Policy & TTL | Automatic prefix KV-caching in vLLM / SGLang (0 cost) | Automatic prefix KV-caching in vLLM / SGLang (0 cost) |
| Computer Use / GUI Agent | Supported (Screen coordinate grounding, browser & desktop GUI action loops) | API / CLI Tool-Use & DOM Agent ready (no raw pixel desktop click loop) |
| MCP & Parallel Tool Calling | Native MCP Client/Server ready · Parallel function calling · 100% Strict JSON Schema | Native MCP Client/Server ready · Parallel function calling · 100% Strict JSON Schema |
| Web Search Grounding & Sandbox | Supported via external Tavily/Exa Search & E2B/Docker Sandbox tools | Supported via external Tavily/Exa Search & E2B/Docker Sandbox tools |
| Official Fine-Tuning Support | Full Weights SFT, LoRA, QLoRA, DPO & GRPO RL (Unsloth / Axolotl / Llama-Factory) | Full Weights SFT, LoRA, QLoRA, DPO & GRPO RL (Unsloth / Axolotl / Llama-Factory) |
| Multimodal Token Billing | Text BPE (~4 chars/token) · Vision (~258–765 tokens per image tile) | Text BPE (~4 chars/token) |
| Quantization & Min GPU VRAM | BF16 / FP16, FP8 Dynamic, INT4 AWQ / GPTQ, GGUF (Q4_K_M / Q8_0) · 11 GB VRAM (4-bit Quantized) · 37 GB VRAM (Native BF16) | BF16 / FP16, FP8 Dynamic, INT4 AWQ / GPTQ, GGUF (Q4_K_M / Q8_0) · 43 GB VRAM (4-bit Quantized) · 151 GB VRAM (Native BF16) |
| Safety & Frontier Classification | Open-Weights System Card + Customizable Guardrail Layer (Llama Guard / ShieldGemma) | Open-Weights System Card + Customizable Guardrail Layer (Llama Guard / ShieldGemma) |
| Enterprise Compliance (ZDR/HIPAA/SOC2) | 100% Air-Gapped On-Premises / Private VPC · Full HIPAA, GDPR & SOC2 Control | 100% Air-Gapped On-Premises / Private VPC · Full HIPAA, GDPR & SOC2 Control |
| Input Modalities | text, vision | text |
| Output Modalities | text | text |
Llama 4 Maverick vs Llama 3.3 70B: Quick Answers
Which is more intelligent, Llama 4 Maverick or Llama 3.3 70B?
Llama 4 Maverick is more intelligent. It scores 84 compared with 38 on the composite Intelligence Index.
Which model is faster?
Llama 3.3 70B is faster, generating 280 tokens per second compared with 85 tokens per second.
Which model is cheaper to run?
Llama 4 Maverick is cheaper at $0.00 per 1M tokens blended, compared with $0.07 (7:2:1 cache:input:output ratio).
Which model has lower latency?
Llama 3.3 70B has lower latency, with a time to first token of 0.25s compared with 0.55s.
Which model has a larger context window?
Llama 4 Maverick has a larger context window, supporting 1M tokens compared with 128K tokens.
Verdict
Verdict & Model Selection Recommendation: Choose Llama 4 Maverick if your priority is Enterprise private cloud deployments, sophisticated coding assistants, and multimodal analysis. Its performance in demanding tasks justifies its operational token cost. Choose Llama 3.3 70B if your workflow prioritizes Private on-premises deployments, high-throughput text summarization, and fine-tuned domain tasks. For large-scale batch processing or customer-facing conversational interfaces, its balance of speed and economics delivers superior ROI.
Frequently asked questions
How does Llama 4 Maverick compare to Llama 3.3 70B in API token pricing and cost per token?+
Both Llama 4 Maverick and Llama 3.3 70B are open-weights foundation models available at $0.00 direct API cost when self-hosted, or offered at identical baseline rates across major inference providers. Model selection depends on GPU deployment sizing and specialized benchmark performance rather than raw token price. Both models support prompt caching discounts of up to 90% for repeated prompt prefixes.
Which model has a larger context window: Llama 4 Maverick or Llama 3.3 70B?+
Llama 4 Maverick supports a context window of 1,000K tokens (~750k words), while Llama 3.3 70B supports 128K tokens (~96k words). Therefore, Llama 4 Maverick can process more textual data and document context in a single prompt.
Which AI model is better for software engineering and coding: Llama 4 Maverick or Llama 3.3 70B?+
Llama 4 Maverick scores 62% on SWE-bench Verified while Llama 3.3 70B scores 39.5%. For autonomous software engineering and multi-file debugging, Llama 4 Maverick holds the verified benchmark lead.
What is the difference in reasoning capability and extended thinking between Llama 4 Maverick and Llama 3.3 70B?+
Llama 4 Maverick is optimized for low-latency direct generation. In contrast, Llama 3.3 70B focuses on standard fast inference.
How does inference speed (tokens per second) compare between Llama 4 Maverick and Llama 3.3 70B?+
Llama 4 Maverick generates approximately 85 tokens per second, while Llama 3.3 70B delivers 280 tokens per second. In latency-sensitive production environments, Llama 3.3 70B provides faster time-to-first-token (TTFT) and higher streaming response velocity.
Can you implement a tiered LLM routing setup combining Llama 4 Maverick and Llama 3.3 70B to optimize costs?+
Yes! Tiered multi-model routing can optimize for latency and accuracy: you can route high-frequency conversational turns and latency-sensitive queries to Llama 3.3 70B, and route deep architectural or complex reasoning queries to Llama 4 Maverick. This balanced routing strategy maximizes system throughput and answer quality.
Understand key metrics like context window, token pricing, reasoning mode, and SWE-bench scores in our comprehensive AI glossary.
Related reading
- Command R7B vs Llama 3.3 70B: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonCompare
- DeepSeek V3 vs Llama 3.3 70B: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonCompare
- Gemma 4 31B vs Llama 3.3 70B: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonCompare
- Llama 3.3 70B vs GPT-4o mini: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonCompare
- Llama 3.3 70B vs GPT-4o: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonCompare
- Llama 3.3 70B vs Llama 3.1 405B: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonCompare
Benchmark scores, token prices, and rate limits evolve rapidly as AI labs release model updates. Always verify current specifications and pricing on the official provider documentation.
Sources: GetInfoUs Independent AI Benchmarks & Official API Specs