Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.
| Metric | Llama 3.1 Nemotron Instruct 70B | Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Input ($/M tokens) | $1.2 | $0.15 |
| Output ($/M tokens) | $1.2 | $1.2 |
Verdict. Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Instruct takes the aggregate benchmark matchup 1–0 across 1 categories. Real workloads usually care about a handful of specific tasks — see the per-benchmark table above.
Pricing. Both models sit in the budget bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.0× the per-million-token cost, Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Instruct is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Instruct makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.
Strengths. Llama 3.1 Nemotron Instruct 70B is strongest on Intelligence Index (6.9). Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Instruct leads on Intelligence Index (9.6).
Speed. On throughput, Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Instruct generates tokens at 181 tok/s versus 126 tok/s — about 30% faster. On time-to-first-token, Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Instruct responds in 2240ms vs 3220ms, which matters most for chat-style UIs.
Provider. NVIDIA and Alibaba sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: NVIDIA tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Alibaba often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.
Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): Llama 3.1 Nemotron Instruct 70B costs $54.00 ($648/year); Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Instruct costs $22.50 ($270/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Llama 3.1 Nemotron Instruct 70B ≈ $8.40/run, Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Instruct ≈ $3.15/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Llama 3.1 Nemotron Instruct 70B ≈ $360/run, Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Instruct ≈ $150/run. Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Instruct becomes more attractive at higher volume — the absolute per-token pricing difference compounds when you ship at scale.
Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.
Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Instruct is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.41/M tokens vs $1.20/M for Llama 3.1 Nemotron Instruct 70B.
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Instruct wins 1 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Llama 3.1 Nemotron Instruct 70B. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Instruct generates tokens faster at 181 tok/s vs 126 tok/s. However, Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Instruct has lower time-to-first-token (2.24s vs 3.22s).
Choose based on your priorities: Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Instruct for lower cost, Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Instruct for stronger benchmark performance, and Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Instruct for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.