Side-by-side comparison
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct vs Step 3.5 Flash
Meta
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
🔧 Tools
{} JSON
Input / 1M
$0.1000
Output / 1M
$0.3200
| Llama 3.3 70B Instruct | Step 3.5 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | StepFun |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 131,072 | 262,144 |
| 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 → | 0.1000 | 0.1000 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 0.3200 | 0.3000 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct or Step 3.5 Flash?
Step 3.5 Flash is cheaper than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.01 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, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct or Step 3.5 Flash?
Step 3.5 Flash has the larger context window at 262k tokens versus 131k tokens for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct. That means Step 3.5 Flash can ingest about 2.0x as much text per request.
What is the difference between Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and Step 3.5 Flash?
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct comes from Meta; Step 3.5 Flash comes from StepFun. They differ in pricing, context window, and supported capabilities — see the side-by-side table on this page for the exact figures, refreshed nightly.