0 providers50 models

Model crosswalk

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

Llama 3.1 8b Instruct
vs
Qwen 3 8b Instruct
Llama 3.1 8b InstructA

Llama 3.1 8b Instruct

Cheapest provider
$/1M input
$/1M output
Qwen 3 8b InstructB

Qwen 3 8b Instruct

Cheapest provider
$/1M input
$/1M output
Specs and cheapest providers
SpecLlama 3.1 8b InstructQwen 3 8b Instruct
Parameters
Context window
License
Released
Cheapest provider
Provider
Input / 1M tokens
Output / 1M tokens

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
Llama 3.1 8b Instruct
$0.00 /mo
Qwen 3 8b Instruct
$0.00 /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$0.00 · $0.00
5M in · 2M out$0.00 · $0.00
20M in · 10M out$0.00 · $0.00
100M in · 60M out$0.00 · $0.00

Capability vs price

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

Compare total monthly cost across providers for Llama 3.1 8b Instruct and Qwen 3 8b Instruct using your own input/output token mix.

Open workload calculator →
Editor's take
[Llama 3.1 8B Instruct](/models/meta--llama-3.1-8b-instruct) and [Qwen 3 8B Instruct](/models/alibaba--qwen-3-8b-instruct) are matched in parameter count but differ substantially in capability profile and architecture choices. Both run in the $0.05–$0.20/M input token range with similar throughput — 100–180 tok/s on A10G hardware. The key differentiator is Qwen 3's hybrid thinking mode: the model can dynamically allocate chain-of-thought compute at inference time, controlled by a `enable_thinking` flag, without requiring a separate endpoint deployment. On reasoning benchmarks — MATH, AIME, and similar — Qwen 3 8B outperforms Llama 3.1 8B by 8–15 points when thinking mode is enabled. Standard (non-thinking) mode performance is broadly comparable on general instruction tasks, with Llama 3.1 8B retaining an edge on English instruction-following evals and Qwen 3 8B stronger on East Asian language tasks. **Where Llama 3.1 8B wins:** English-dominant deployments where instruction-following precision matters and the broader Western provider ecosystem is an operational requirement. Llama's toolchain maturity and fine-tuning recipe availability also make it easier to adapt for domain-specific use cases. **Where Qwen 3 8B wins:** Math-intensive pipelines, multilingual APIs serving Chinese or Japanese users, and any workload that benefits from on-demand reasoning without running a separate large model. The thinking mode makes it a practical budget alternative to models 3–5× its size. **Bottom line:** Pick Llama 3.1 8B Instruct for English-first, general-purpose APIs. Pick Qwen 3 8B Instruct when you need stronger mathematical reasoning or multilingual quality at the same cost tier.
Related comparisons
Full model details