grok-4-1-fast vs llama-3.1-70b-instruct

Capability for the money

grok-4-1-fast is 3.6× cheaper than llama-3.1-70b-instruct and scores higher on coding (LiveCodeBench), tool use (τ²-bench) and hard reasoning (GPQA Diamond) — there is no case for paying more here.

1. Following instructions

   extraction, classification, sticking to a format

   IFBench
   grok-4-1-fast36.5%

   llama-3.1-70b-instruct34.4%

   grok-4-1-fast +2.1

2. Coding

   writing and fixing code

   LiveCodeBench
   grok-4-1-fast39.9%

   llama-3.1-70b-instruct23.2%

   grok-4-1-fast +16.7

3. Tool use

   multi-step agent work against real tools

   τ²-bench
   grok-4-1-fast63.7%

   llama-3.1-70b-instruct15.2%

   grok-4-1-fast +48.5

4. Hard reasoning

   graduate-level science and multi-step analysis

   GPQA Diamond
   grok-4-1-fast63.7%

   llama-3.1-70b-instruct40.9%

   grok-4-1-fast +22.8

Averaged over the benchmarks both models sat, grok-4-1-fast returns 185.3 points of pass rate per dollar of blended price against 28.4 — the ratio that decides whether the dearer model earns its rate.

Each figure is a pass rate: the share of that test set the model answered correctly, measured by a third party rather than self-reported by the lab. Rows are different tests of different difficulty, so compare a model against the other model, not one row against the next. And a benchmark is not your workload — it narrows the shortlist, it does not pick for you.