AI Model Comparison

GPT-4 Turbo vs Llama 3.1 405B

Verdict
GPT-4 Turbo vs Llama 3.1 405B: Llama 3.1 405B scores higher on the MMLU benchmark

Head-to-head specifications

MetricGPT-4 TurboLlama 3.1 405BDifference
MMLU (general capability)86.5%88.6%-2.1%
Context window128K tokens128K tokens
Price (input / output per 1M)$10 / $30Open weights
AccessProprietary APIOpen weights
  • Llama 3.1 405B leads general capability (MMLU 88.6% vs 86.5%).

Verdict: GPT-4 Turbo or Llama 3.1 405B?

Our recommendation
On paper these are near-identical; decide on price, availability or brand preference.

GPT-4 Turbo advantages

  • No decisive advantage on the tracked metrics.

Llama 3.1 405B advantages

  • No decisive advantage on the tracked metrics.

Value for money

Llama 3.1 405B is open-weight and can be self-hosted, which can dramatically lower cost at scale versus a per-token API.

GPT-4 Turbo vs Llama 3.1 405B: which should you choose?

GPT-4 Turbo — OpenAI large language model (2023) with a 128K-token context window and an MMLU score of 86.5%.

Llama 3.1 405B — Meta large language model (2024) with a 128K-token context window and an MMLU score of 88.6%, released with open weights.

GPT-4 Turbo vs Llama 3.1 405B: Llama 3.1 405B scores higher on the MMLU benchmark. Llama 3.1 405B leads general capability (MMLU 88.6% vs 86.5%).

Capability and reasoning

On MMLU — a 57-subject benchmark of general knowledge and reasoning — the Llama 3.1 405B scores 88.6% versus 86.5%. MMLU is a useful proxy for raw knowledge but does not capture instruction-following, coding, tool use, latency or safety, so treat it as one signal among several.

Context window

The GPT-4 Turbo handles up to 128K tokens per request, which sets how much documentation, transcript or code it can reason over at once — decisive for retrieval-augmented and long-document workflows.

Pricing and access

GPT-4 Turbo is proprietary api and Llama 3.1 405B is open weights. Proprietary models bill per token via API; open-weight models can be self-hosted, trading per-call cost for infrastructure you manage. For production, weigh throughput, rate limits and data-residency needs alongside headline price.

The verdict

Both are credible choices in the ai model comparison space; the specification table above lays out every metric so you can weigh the trade-offs that matter to you. Pick the one whose strengths line up with how you will actually use it.

Frequently asked questions

Is the GPT-4 Turbo better than the Llama 3.1 405B?

On paper these are near-identical; decide on price, availability or brand preference. Llama 3.1 405B leads general capability (MMLU 88.6% vs 86.5%).

What is the main difference between the GPT-4 Turbo and the Llama 3.1 405B?

Llama 3.1 405B leads general capability (MMLU 88.6% vs 86.5%).

Which is better value?

Llama 3.1 405B is open-weight and can be self-hosted, which can dramatically lower cost at scale versus a per-token API.

Methodology

Large language models are compared on the MMLU benchmark (a widely-cited 57-subject test of general knowledge and reasoning, reported as a percentage), maximum context window, and published API pricing per million input and output tokens. Open-weight models can also be self-hosted. Benchmarks capture only part of real-world quality, which also depends on tool use, latency, safety and task fit.

MC
Marcus Chen
Hardware & Product Analyst

Marcus benchmarks processors, GPUs, phones and vehicles and maintains normalized performance databases.

MSc Computer Engineering10+ years review experience
✓ Reviewed by Priya Nair, Data Quality Reviewer.
Last updated 2026-05-01
GPT-4 Turbo profile → Llama 3.1 405B profile → Compare something else

Related comparisons