Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Groq Llama 3.3 70B
Performance benchmarks + pricing comparison — updated April 2026
Claude 3.5 Haiku
AnthropicFast, cost-effective model for high-volume tasks. Great for code review and simple queries.
| Input | $0.800/M |
| Output | $4.00/M |
| Context | 200K tokens |
| Best For | Code review, high-volume tasks, simple queries |
| Benchmark | 52/100 |
Groq Llama 3.3 70B
GroqLlama 3.3 70B running on Groq's ultra-fast LPU inference. Sub-100ms responses for 70B model.
| Input | $0.590/M |
| Output | $0.790/M |
| Context | 128K tokens |
| Best For | Real-time applications, fast chat, low-latency coding |
Cost Comparison by Scenario
Estimated cost per project with 30% cache hit rate. Actual costs may vary based on usage patterns.
| Scenario | Claude 3.5 Haiku | Groq Llama 3.3 70B | Savings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Small Script (1K lines) | $0.16 | $0.04 | Groq Llama 3.3 70B saves $0.12 (73%) |
| Medium Feature (10K lines) | $1.24 | $0.36 | Groq Llama 3.3 70B saves $0.88 (71%) |
| Large Project (50K lines) | $6.21 | $1.82 | Groq Llama 3.3 70B saves $4.39 (71%) |
| Code Review (5K lines) | $0.32 | $0.12 | Groq Llama 3.3 70B saves $0.20 (62%) |
Verdict
Groq Llama 3.3 70B wins on both price and performance — $0.590/M input with a benchmark score of N/A/100.
For most developers, this is the clear choice between these two models.
Compare with Other Models
Claude Sonnet 4
AnthropicAnthropic's balanced model for coding and general tasks. Best price-performance ratio in the Claude family.
Claude Opus 4
AnthropicAnthropic's most powerful model. Best for complex reasoning and challenging coding tasks.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
AnthropicPrevious generation Sonnet. Still excellent for coding tasks at the same price point.
Claude 3 Opus
AnthropicFirst generation Opus. Highest reasoning capability in the Claude 3 family.
Claude 3 Sonnet
AnthropicFirst generation Sonnet. Balanced performance for general tasks.
Claude 3 Haiku
AnthropicCheapest Claude model. Fast responses for simple tasks and basic coding.