MetaLlama-3.1 8BVSMistral AIMixtral 8x22B v0.1
Our Take
Standardized reasoning and coding benchmarks are currently pending verification for one or both of these models. We recommend testing Llama-3.1 8B and Mixtral 8x22B v0.1 directly in their respective provider playgrounds to see which fits your specific prompt styles best.
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (human-eval)Winner (+27.5%)
72.6%basic standalone code completion and simple functions
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
30.4%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
Self HostLocal execution (zero API fees)Context WindowLarger
131.07k tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (human-eval)
45.1%basic standalone code completion and simple functions
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
N/Agraduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
Self HostLocal execution (zero API fees)Context Window
65.54k tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Llama-3.1 8B vs Mixtral 8x22B v0.1
Llama-3.1 8B is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 72.6% on human-eval (basic standalone code completion and simple functions) compared to Mixtral 8x22B v0.1 which scores 45.1%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Llama-3.1 8B and Mixtral 8x22B v0.1.
Do you want to find a model for your constraints?
Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.