Side-by-side comparison
Granite 4.1 8B vs Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
Meta
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
🔧 Tools
{} JSON
Input / 1M
$0.0200
Output / 1M
$0.0500
| Granite 4.1 8B | Llama 3.1 8B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | IBM | Meta |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 131,072 | 16,384 |
| Capabilities Optional capabilities the model advertises: vision (images), tools (function calling), json_mode (structured output). | tools, json_mode | tools, json_mode |
| Input $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens you send (prompt + context). Cheaper side highlighted. Glossary → | 0.0500 | 0.0200 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 0.1000 | 0.0500 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, Granite 4.1 8B or Llama 3.1 8B Instruct?
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is cheaper than Granite 4.1 8B on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.04 per 1M tokens. Exact savings depend on your input-vs-output ratio — use the cost calculator on this page for a workload-specific estimate.
Which has a larger context window, Granite 4.1 8B or Llama 3.1 8B Instruct?
Granite 4.1 8B has the larger context window at 131k tokens versus 16k tokens for Llama 3.1 8B Instruct. That means Granite 4.1 8B can ingest about 8.0x as much text per request.
What is the difference between Granite 4.1 8B and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct?
Granite 4.1 8B comes from IBM; Llama 3.1 8B Instruct comes from Meta. They differ in pricing, context window, and supported capabilities — see the side-by-side table on this page for the exact figures, refreshed nightly.