💰 Unit Cost Winner Llama 3.3 70B Instruct $0.12/1M in · $0.30/1M out
⚡ Latency & Speed Winner Llama 3.3 70B Instruct 145ms TTFT · 165 tok/s
💻 Coding (SWE) Winner DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) 77.4% SWE-bench · 94.5% HumanEval
🧠 STEM Reasoning Winner DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) 91.3% GPQA · 96.4% MATH-500

Which model is better: DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) or Llama 3.3 70B Instruct?

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 45.5% cheaper for input tokens ($0.12 vs. $0.22 per 1M tokens) and $0.30 vs. $0.65 for output tokens (1.8x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers lower response latency at 145ms TTFT (165ms faster than DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)) with 165 vs. 165 tok/s throughput. DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) leads coding evaluations at 77.4% SWE-bench Verified vs. 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct and 91.3% vs. 55.6% on GPQA Diamond.
Verified daily via automated API latency tests and official documentation.

Verified Performance & Unit Economics Delta (12 Dimensions)

Daily synchronized metrics across token pricing, prompt cache economics, latency, throughput, and 5 capability benchmarks.

Metric / Dimension DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) Llama 3.3 70B Instruct Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens $0.22 $0.12 Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 1.8x cheaper
Output Cost / 1M Tokens $0.65 $0.30 Llama 3.3 70B Instruct (53.8% lower)
Prompt Cache Read / 1M $0.007 $0.030 DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) is 4.3x cheaper
Prompt Cache Write / 1M $0.22 $0.12 Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 1.8x cheaper
Context Window (Max Output) 1,049k (128k out) 131k (33k out) DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) (8.0x larger context)
Avg TTFT Response Latency 310ms 145ms Llama 3.3 70B Instruct (165ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput) 165 tok/s 165 tok/s Equal Throughput
SWE-bench Verified (Coding) 77.4% 42.5% DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) (+34.9% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM) 91.3% 55.6% DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) (+35.7% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline) 87.3% 76.8% DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) (+10.5% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic) 96.4% 77% DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) (+19.4% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR) 81.6 / 100 74.6 / 100 DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) (+7 pts)

Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster

Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.

25.0M Tokens
500K 50M 250M 500M+
5.0M Tokens
100K 25M 75M 150M+
50% Cached
0% (Uncached) 25% 50% (Typical Agent) 95% Max

Estimated Monthly Spend

DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) $6.09

$0.22/1M in · $0.65/1M out

Prompt Cache: $0.007/1M read · $0.22/1M write

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct $3.38

$0.12/1M in · $0.30/1M out

Prompt Cache: $0.030/1M read · $0.12/1M write

Projected Monthly Cost Reduction
$2.71 / mo
(44.5% lower cost with Llama 3.3 70B Instruct)
Open Full Matchup Analysis →
A

When to Choose DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)

Choose DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) (DeepSeek) for ultra-low-cost open-weight multimodal MoE built for high-throughput visual document OCR, chart interpretation, and real-time autonomous coding agents — offering a 1,048k context window, 310ms TTFT, and $0.22/1M input pricing ($0.007/1M cached reads).

B

When to Choose Llama 3.3 70B Instruct

Choose Llama 3.3 70B Instruct (Meta) for cost-optimized on-premise deployments, fast text transformation, structured entity extraction, and enterprise dialogue pipelines — offering a 131k context window, 145ms TTFT, and $0.12/1M input pricing ($0.030/1M cached reads).

Related Questions & Decision Factors

Which is cheaper: DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) or Llama 3.3 70B Instruct?

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is cheaper at $0.12/1M input tokens ($0.30/1M output) compared to $0.22/1M input ($0.65/1M output) for DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp).

Which model has lower TTFT latency and higher tok/s throughput: DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) or Llama 3.3 70B Instruct?

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct delivers faster first-token latency at 145ms TTFT (165 tok/s throughput) compared to 310ms TTFT (165 tok/s) for DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp).

How do DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?

On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) scores 77.4% versus 42.5% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct. On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) scores 91.3% versus 55.6% for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct (and 96.4% vs 77% on MATH-500).

When should you choose DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp)?

Choose DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision (Exp) (DeepSeek) for ultra-low-cost open-weight multimodal MoE built for high-throughput visual document OCR, chart interpretation, and real-time autonomous coding agents — offering a 1,048k context window, 310ms TTFT, and $0.22/1M input pricing ($0.007/1M cached reads).

When should you choose Llama 3.3 70B Instruct?

Choose Llama 3.3 70B Instruct (Meta) for cost-optimized on-premise deployments, fast text transformation, structured entity extraction, and enterprise dialogue pipelines — offering a 131k context window, 145ms TTFT, and $0.12/1M input pricing ($0.030/1M cached reads).

Explore High-Priority Related Model Matchups