Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.
| Metric | Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B Instruct | Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Input ($/M tokens) | $0.3 | $0.6 |
| Output ($/M tokens) | $1.8 | $1.8 |
Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks
Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B Instruct is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.68/M tokens vs $0.90/M for Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 (Reasoning).
Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 (Reasoning) wins 7 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 5 for Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B Instruct. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.
Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B Instruct generates tokens faster at 67 tok/s vs 41 tok/s. However, Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 (Reasoning) has lower time-to-first-token (0.72s vs 1.70s).
Choose based on your priorities: Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B Instruct for lower cost, Llama 3.1 Nemotron Ultra 253B v1 (Reasoning) for stronger benchmark performance, and Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B Instruct for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.