0 providers50 models

Model crosswalk

Side-by-side on price, capability and workload. Both columns use the cheapest provider for that model.

DeepSeek V3.2
vs
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
DeepSeek V3.2A

DeepSeek V3.2

671B params · 131K context · deepseek

Cheapest providertogether-ai
$/1M input$270000.00
$/1M output$1100000.00
Llama 3.3 70B InstructB

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct

70B params · 131K context · llama-3

Cheapest providerfireworks-ai
$/1M input$220000.00
$/1M output$880000.00
Specs and cheapest providers
SpecDeepSeek V3.2Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Parameters671B70B
Context window131K tokens131K tokens
Licensedeepseekllama-3
Released2025-05-072024-12-06
Cheapest provider
Providertogether-aifireworks-ai
Input / 1M tokens$270000.00$220000.00🏆
Output / 1M tokens$1100000.00$880000.00🏆

Add a third model to compare

Benchmark comparison

No benchmark data available for either model yet.

Sample workload — 5M in + 2M out per month

using each model's cheapest provider
DeepSeek V3.2
$3550000.00 /mo
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
$2860000.00 /mo

What changes at scale

Output tokens dominate cost above a 1:3 input/output ratio. Below 1:1, input dominates and cheaper-input providers win regardless of headline price.

1M in · 250K out$545000.00 · $440000.00
5M in · 2M out$3550000.00 · $2860000.00
20M in · 10M out$16400000.00 · $13200000.00
100M in · 60M out$93000000.00 · $74800000.00

Capability vs price

scatter
// scatter: benchmark × $/1M out
Calculate cost for your workload

Compare total monthly cost across providers for DeepSeek V3.2 and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct using your own input/output token mix.

Open workload calculator →
Editor's take
[DeepSeek V3.2](/models/deepseek--deepseek-v3.2) is a 671B sparse MoE activating ~37B parameters per token, with roughly 30% lower inference cost than DeepSeek V3 at most providers — typically landing under $0.50/M input tokens on the cheapest tiers. [Llama 3.3 70B Instruct](/models/meta--llama-3.3-70b-instruct) is a dense 70B model representing Meta's strongest instruction-following checkpoint at the 70B scale, available on every major hosted-inference provider with rates often under $0.20/M input tokens. Despite the 10× total-parameter gap, benchmark comparisons are tighter than expected. Llama 3.3 70B substantially outperforms its predecessors on instruction-following, and Meta's training improvements at 70B compressed a lot of reasoning quality into a small footprint. DeepSeek V3.2 holds clear advantages on complex multi-step reasoning, long-context synthesis, and code generation tasks — but the margin shrinks on simpler instruction-following benchmarks where Llama 3.3 70B punches above its weight class. Llama 3.3 70B wins on latency-sensitive workloads: dense 70B inference on modern hardware delivers first-token latency in the tens of milliseconds, and provider coverage is near-universal — you can run it on any hyperscaler, regional inference provider, or local hardware. For real-time chat, low-latency classification, and applications where P95 latency matters more than reasoning depth, the 70B's predictable dense-model performance is a practical advantage. DeepSeek V3.2 is the right call for long-context reasoning, complex code generation, or any task where output quality measurably degrades with the 70B ceiling — at MoE economics that make 671B total capacity financially viable. Pick V3.2 if you need long-context reasoning at MoE economics. Pick Llama 3.3 70B if you need predictable dense-model latency, broad provider coverage, and the Llama license is acceptable.
Related comparisons
Full model details