AI Models · Compare

DeepSeek V3 vs Llama 3.3 70B

Which AI model is better in 2026? Compare DeepSeek V3 and Llama 3.3 70B on benchmarks, pricing, speed, context window, and real-world fit.

Quick summary

DeepSeek V3 is currently the stronger overall pick for reasoning, coding, and math. Llama 3.3 70B wins on context, speed, and price. Llama 3.3 70B remains the budget pick at $0.27 vs $0.48 blended / 1M tokens.

Overall winner

DeepSeek V3

View DeepSeek V3 review

DeepSeek V3 wins

  • Reasoning
  • Coding
  • Math

Llama 3.3 70B wins

  • Context
  • Speed
  • Price

Want to compare different models?

Pick any two models
DeepSeek

DeepSeek V3

Open sourceDec 2024

Frontier-class quality at fast-tier prices — and open weights.

Open docs
Meta

Llama 3.3 70B

Open sourceDec 2024

Open-weights 70B that matches GPT-4o on most benchmarks.

Open docs

DeepSeek V3 vs Llama 3.3 70B: overview

DeepSeek V3 (DeepSeek) and Llama 3.3 70B (Meta) are frequently compared by teams choosing an AI stack in 2026. DeepSeek V3: Frontier-class quality at fast-tier prices — and open weights. Llama 3.3 70B: Open-weights 70B that matches GPT-4o on most benchmarks. This DeepSeek V3 vs Llama 3.3 70B comparison covers benchmarks, pricing, context window, speed, modalities, strengths, weaknesses, and who should pick which model.

DeepSeek V3 is open-weights with a 64k-token context window and a blended API price near $0.48 / 1M tokens (intelligence index 67/100). Llama 3.3 70B is open-weights with 128k context at about $0.27 blended / 1M (intelligence 66/100). Those gaps drive most “DeepSeek V3 vs Llama 3.3 70B” searches — quality versus cost, closed versus open, cloud versus self-host.

Where they differ most: DeepSeek V3 tends to lead on reasoning, coding, and math, while Llama 3.3 70B leads on context, speed, and price. Choose DeepSeek V3 when you want the stronger overall profile on our scorecard; validate with your own evals before migrating production traffic.

DeepSeek V3 is often shortlisted for production chatbots, code assistance, and high-volume apis. Llama 3.3 70B fits self-hosting, eu data residency, and cost-sensitive workloads. Scroll to pricing, real-world tasks, and the who-should-choose section for decision support.

People search “DeepSeek V3 vs Llama 3.3 70B”, “which is better”, and “DeepSeek V3 vs Llama 3.3 70B pricing” for the same reason: switching models is expensive if quality drops, and staying put is expensive if you overpay. Use the winner card for a fast answer, the head-to-head table for receipts, and the editorial verdict for a human recommendation. DeepSeek V3 currently ranks among frontier options from DeepSeek; Llama 3.3 70B is a flexible open-weights alternative from Meta. If API pricing is your main concern, start with the pricing section; for multimodal workloads, check vision/audio rows in technical differences; for agents and long documents, prioritize context and reasoning wins.

Head to head

Spec
DeepSeek V3
Llama 3.3 70B
Winner
Reason
Intelligence index↑ better
Winner67
66
DeepSeek V3
DeepSeek V3 leads on the composite intelligence index (67 vs 66).
Speed↑ better
90 tok/s
Winner200 tok/s
Llama 3.3 70B
Llama 3.3 70B generates tokens faster (200 vs 90 tok/s).
Time to first token↓ better
0.45 s
Winner0.4 s
Llama 3.3 70B
Llama 3.3 70B starts streaming sooner (0.4s vs 0.45s TTFT).
Context window↑ better
64k
Winner128k
Llama 3.3 70B
Llama 3.3 70B wins with 128k tokens — about 2.0× DeepSeek V3.
Max output↑ better
Winner8k
4k
DeepSeek V3
DeepSeek V3 wins this row (8192 vs 4096).
Input price↓ better
$0.27 / 1M tokens
Winner$0.23 / 1M tokens
Llama 3.3 70B
Llama 3.3 70B is cheaper (~1.2× lower on this price row).
Output price↓ better
$1.10 / 1M tokens
Winner$0.40 / 1M tokens
Llama 3.3 70B
Llama 3.3 70B is cheaper (~2.8× lower on this price row).
Blended price↓ better
$0.48 / 1M tokens
Winner$0.27 / 1M tokens
Llama 3.3 70B
Llama 3.3 70B is cheaper (~1.8× lower on this price row).
License
Open source
Open source
Qualitative / categorical row
Input modalities
text
text
Qualitative / categorical row
Output modalities
text
text
Qualitative / categorical row

Pricing comparison

API cost is often the deciding factor in DeepSeek V3 vs Llama 3.3 70B for high-volume apps. Figures below use catalog list prices with a 3:1 input:output blend for monthly estimates. Cached input, batch, and realtime surcharges vary by provider — confirm on official docs.

API costDeepSeek V3Llama 3.3 70B
Input / 1M tokens$0.27$0.23
Output / 1M tokens$1.10$0.40
Blended (3:1) / 1M$0.48$0.27
Est. cost @ 1M blended tokens$0.48$0.27
Est. cost @ 10M blended tokens$4.80$2.70
Est. cost @ 100M blended tokens$48.00$27.00

Cached input, batch API, and realtime surcharges are provider-specific and not always published in our catalog — verify on official pricing pages.

Benchmark showdown

MMLU
DeepSeek V3
88.5
Llama 3.3 70B
86.0
MMLU Pro
DeepSeek V3
75.9
Llama 3.3 70B
68.9
GPQA
DeepSeek V3
59.1
Llama 3.3 70B
50.5
MATH
DeepSeek V3
84.1
Llama 3.3 70B
77.0
HumanEval
DeepSeek V3
89.5
Llama 3.3 70B
88.4

DeepSeek V3 leads on MMLU, MMLU Pro, GPQA, MATH, and HumanEval, indicating stronger coding and reasoning-oriented scores. Llama 3.3 70B remains attractive for production deployments on price. Raw benchmarks shortlist models — run task-specific evals before you switch.

Real-world performance

Beyond academic scores, here is how DeepSeek V3 vs Llama 3.3 70B tends to split common product tasks based on catalog strengths, price, and modalities.

TaskWinner
CodingDeepSeek V3
Blog writingDeepSeek V3
ResearchLlama 3.3 70B
Customer supportLlama 3.3 70B
Cheap API / high volumeLlama 3.3 70B
AI agentsLlama 3.3 70B
SummarizationDeepSeek V3
TranslationDeepSeek V3
Vision / multimodalDeepSeek V3
Self-hosting / open weightsLlama 3.3 70B

Technical differences

FeatureDeepSeek V3Llama 3.3 70B
ProviderDeepSeekMeta
LicenseOpen sourceOpen source
Pricing modeltokenstokens
Context window64k tokens128k tokens
Max output8k tokens4k tokens
Vision inputNoNo
Audio inputNoNo
Text outputYesYes
Image outputNoNo
Video outputNoNo
Audio outputNoNo
Self-host friendlyYesYes
DocsAvailableAvailable

Strengths, weaknesses and best-for

DeepSeek V3
Strengths
  • Best $/intelligence on the market
  • Open weights
Weaknesses
  • Smaller context vs newer models
Best for
  • Production chatbots
  • Code assistance
  • High-volume APIs
Llama 3.3 70B
Strengths
  • Open weights
  • Fast on Groq / Cerebras
  • Cheap
Weaknesses
  • No vision
  • Smaller context than peers
Best for
  • Self-hosting
  • EU data residency
  • Cost-sensitive workloads

Who should choose which

Choose DeepSeek V3 if

  • You need stronger reasoning, coding, or math quality
  • Production chatbots
  • Code assistance

Choose Llama 3.3 70B if

  • You need a larger context window
  • You care about faster token throughput
  • API budget is the top constraint
  • Self-hosting
  • EU data residency

Pros & cons

DeepSeek V3

Pros

  • Best $/intelligence on the market
  • Open weights

Cons

  • Smaller context vs newer models

Llama 3.3 70B

Pros

  • Open weights
  • Fast on Groq / Cerebras
  • Cheap

Cons

  • No vision
  • Smaller context than peers

Editorial verdict

DeepSeek V3 edges this matchup — with caveats

DeepSeek V3 is the better choice when you prioritize reasoning, coding, and math. Llama 3.3 70B stands out for context, speed, and price, making it a strong option when those dimensions matter more than raw leaderboard rank. If maximum measured performance matters, DeepSeek V3 wins this matchup. If cost and control matter more, Llama 3.3 70B is difficult to beat. Always confirm with a bake-off on your real prompts before cutting over.

Still deciding? Read the full DeepSeek V3 review and Llama 3.3 70B review, or open the full AI models table.

DeepSeek V3 vs Llama 3.3 70B — frequently asked questions

On our scorecard, DeepSeek V3 wins overall (leads on Reasoning, Coding, and Math). The “better” model still depends on your workload — validate with your own evals.

Build the shortlist that fits your stack

Open every model in one place — sortable table with intelligence, speed and price.