Grok Code Fast 1 vs Llama 3.1 70B
Grok Code Fast 1 vs Llama 3.1 70B: Grok Code Fast 1 is cheaper for input-heavy usage ($0.20/M vs $0.88/M input tokens), while Grok Code Fast 1 is better for long-context tasks (256,000 tokens).
Direct answer: choose Grok Code Fast 1 for lower token spend and choose Grok Code Fast 1 when your workload needs longer context.
Compare input and output token pricing, context windows, and monthly cost estimates on one page so you can pick the cheaper model fast.
Cost Comparison (1000 input + 500 output tokens, 100 requests/day)
Grok Code Fast 1
Llama 3.1 70B
Cost Differences
Llama 3.1 70B costs more than Grok Code Fast 1
Quick Recommendation
Winner for direct API pricing: Grok Code Fast 1. At the default workload, Grok Code Fast 1 saves about $1.11/month ($13.505/year) versus Llama 3.1 70B.
Feature Comparison
| Feature | Grok Code Fast 1 | Llama 3.1 70B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Meta (via Together AI) |
| Input Price | $0.20/1M tokens | $0.88/1M tokens |
| Output Price | $1.50/1M tokens | $0.88/1M tokens |
| Context Window | 256,000 tokens | 128,000 tokens |
| Max Output | 32,768 tokens | 32,768 tokens |
| Category | standard | balanced |
| Capabilities | textcodereasoning | textcode |
| Release Date | 2/1/2026 | 7/23/2024 |
Grok Code Fast 1 vs Llama 3.1 70B: Which Should You Choose?
Choosing between Grok Code Fast 1 and Llama 3.1 70B depends on your priorities: cost efficiency, context length, or raw capability. Grok Code Fast 1 is the more affordable option at $0.20/1M input tokens — 77% cheaper than Llama 3.1 70B. Meanwhile, Grok Code Fast 1 offers a significantly larger context window at 256,000 tokens vs 128,000 for Llama 3.1 70B.
These models come from different providers — xAI and Meta (via Together AI) — which means different API ecosystems, SDKs, rate limits, and terms of service. If you're already integrated with xAI, switching to Meta (via Together AI)involves migration effort beyond just pricing. Factor in your existing infrastructure when deciding.
These models target different tiers: Grok Code Fast 1 is a standard model while Llama 3.1 70B is balanced. This means they're optimized for different workloads. Llama 3.1 70B targets more demanding workloads, while Grok Code Fast 1 provides a cost-effective option for everyday tasks.
Output costs matter too. Grok Code Fast 1 charges $1.50/1M output tokens vs $0.88 for Llama 3.1 70B. For generation-heavy workloads (content creation, code generation, summarization), output pricing often dominates your bill. Grok Code Fast 1 has the edge here at $1.50/1M output tokens.
Best Use Cases
Choose Grok Code Fast 1 when:
- • Budget is a primary concern
- • You need a larger context window (256,000 tokens)
- • You need more capabilities (reasoning)
- • You're already using xAI's API ecosystem
Choose Llama 3.1 70B when:
- • You're already using Meta (via Together AI)'s API ecosystem
Pros and Caveats at a Glance
Grok Code Fast 1
- • Input pricing: $0.20/M tokens
- • Output pricing: $1.50/M tokens
- • Context window: 256,000 tokens
- • Max output: 32,768 tokens
Watch out for
- • Higher output cost than Llama 3.1 70B
Llama 3.1 70B
- • Input pricing: $0.88/M tokens
- • Output pricing: $0.88/M tokens
- • Context window: 128,000 tokens
- • Max output: 32,768 tokens
Watch out for
- • Higher input cost than Grok Code Fast 1
- • Smaller context window than Grok Code Fast 1
Try Different Scenarios
Use the calculator below to see how costs change with different usage patterns
Grok Code Fast 1 (xAI)
Llama 3.1 70B (Meta (via Together AI))
Start using Grok Code Fast 1 today
Sign Up for xAI →Start using Llama 3.1 70B today
Sign Up for Meta (via Together AI) →Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, Grok Code Fast 1 or Llama 3.1 70B?▼
What is the context window difference between Grok Code Fast 1 and Llama 3.1 70B?▼
Which model is better for AI Chatbot?▼
Which model has better overall pricing for heavy usage?▼
Where can I compare xAI and Meta (via Together AI) API pricing beyond this model matchup?▼
Related Comparisons
Related Articles
Learn when to pick each model, then compare live pricing scenarios.