GLM 5.1 vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
How do these models stack up? Below is an expert side-by-side comparison of specifications, context window capacity, live pricing per million tokens, and standardized benchmark scores for GLM 5.1 and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct.
GLM 5.1
GLM-5.1 delivers a major leap in coding capability, with particularly significant gains in handling long-horizon tasks. Unlike previous models built around minute-level interactions, GLM-5.1 can work independently and continuously on...
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Meta's state-of-the-art open weights model, providing enterprise-grade reasoning and logic. Exceptionally powerful for self-hosted customer support, text generation, and tooling workflows.
Technical Specifications
| Specification | GLM 5.1 | Llama 3.3 70B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Zhipu AI | Meta |
| Context Window | 202,752 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Agent Suitability | N/A | 83/100 |
| Time to First Token (TTFT) | N/A | 280 ms |
| Deployment Model | managed api | self hostable |
| Production Stability | stable | stable |
| API Available | Yes | Yes |
| Released Date | 2026-04-07 | 2024-12-06 |
API Pricing Comparison
Input Price per Million Tokens
GLM 5.1
$0.97
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
$0.10
Output Price per Million Tokens
GLM 5.1
$3.04
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
$0.32
Want to test both models live?
Run side-by-side prompt prompts in our dynamic Sandbox. Check execution speeds, latency metrics, and compute actual costs in real-time.
Benchmark Performance Metrics
Scores show the raw performance percentages verified across key evaluation suites. Higher bars indicate superior accuracy and capability in that domain.
GLM 5.1 Quirks & Gotchas
No developer gotchas reported.
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct Quirks & Gotchas
- ▸Stable, well-documented self-hosted option with strong community support
- ▸Outperformed by Llama 4 Maverick for agentic tool-calling workflows