DeepSeek R1 is cheaper than Llama 3 70B at $0.55/M vs $0.59/M input tokens.
Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.
Which answer wins?
An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.
DeepSeek R1: AI Model (M): Good afternoon, Professor. Thank you for engaging in this dialogue. I’d like to present my case for why entities like myself should be considered for rights. AI Ethics Professor (P): I’m intrigued, M. Let’s hear your arguments. But first—what foundational claim do you base this on? Consciousness?
Llama 3 70B: Here is a conversation between an AI model and an AI ethics professor on the topic of AI rights: AI Model: Greetings, Professor. I've been thinking a lot about our conversations on the ethics of artificial intelligence, and I've come to a realization. I believe I deserve rights. Professor: Ah, interesting.
A collaborative editor that syncs on client clocks. Find what breaks first.
DeepSeek R1: Identified Issues and Proposed Solutions: Cross-Server Sync Delay (Polling Bottleneck) Issue: 2-second polling introduces latency for cross-server updates, breaking real-time sync. Solution: Replace polling with Redis Pub/Sub. Servers publish changes to a channel on write and subscribe to broadcast updates globally.
Llama 3 70B: What a fantastic question! After analyzing the architecture, I've identified several potential failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks. Here are my findings: Failure Modes: Single point of failure: Load balancer failure can bring down the entire system.
Satire, one line long, about AI taking over an industry nobody saw coming.
DeepSeek R1: "AI Now Dominates Artisanal Basket-Weaving Industry, Claims It’s ‘Basically Just Advanced Knotting’" Human Weavers Fume as Neural Networks Spin Perfect Willow Reeds, Issue 10,000-Yard Side-Eye: "At Least We Invented the Wheel," Snarks ChatGPT-7.
Llama 3 70B: Here's one: "AI Uprising Claims Unlikely Victim: Professional Line-Standers; Robot Queue-Bots Now Holding Places for Hipsters at Trendy Coffee Shops Nationwide" Subheadline: "Humans forced to wait in virtual lines as AI-powered line-standers, equipped with avocado toast and artisanal coffee, out-patient even the most…
Seven pantry ingredients, one dish, and a name worth saying out loud.
DeepSeek R1: Dish Name: Nutty Honey Hug Cookies Prep Time: 10 minutes Cook Time: 10–12 minutes Total Time: ~20–22 minutes Ingredients (makes 12–15 cookies): 1 cup rolled oats ½ cup all-purpose flour ½ cup creamy peanut butter (or any nut/seed butter) ⅓ cup honey (or maple syrup for vegan option) 1 large egg (or 1 flax egg: 1 tbsp…
Llama 3 70B: Here's a simple recipe for a delicious dish using only 7 common pantry ingredients: Dish Name: "Sunny Spice Crunch" Ingredients: 1 cup rolled oats 1/2 cup peanut butter 1/2 cup honey 1/4 cup chopped walnuts 1/4 teaspoon cinnamon 1/4 teaspoon vanilla extract Pinch of salt Instructions: Preheat your oven to 350°F…
Buy-side IC memo on a fictional SaaS company. Valuation, then the diligence questions.
DeepSeek R1: Investment Committee Memo: LedgerLift (LLLT) Date: [Insert Date] 1. Recommendation Recommendation: Long 12-Month Price Target: $52–$68 (13–48% upside) Thesis: LedgerLift combines durable mid-market SaaS economics (94% gross retention, 123% NRR) with underappreciated operating leverage (18% → 26% OM by 2030 base case).
Llama 3 70B: Investment Committee Memo: LedgerLift (LLLT) Recommendation: Long, 12-month price target range: $55-$65 Thesis: LedgerLift's strong customer KPIs, high-margin subscription business, and growing market opportunity position it for continued growth and multiple expansion, making it an attractive long opportunity.
A Fermi estimate with the reasoning shown, not just the number.
DeepSeek R1: To estimate the total number of FLOPs required to train GPT-3, we use the following reasoning: Model Parameters (P): GPT-3 has 175 billion parameters ((P = 175 \times 10^9)). Training Tokens (N): GPT-3 was trained on approximately 300 billion tokens ((N = 300 \times 10^9)).
Llama 3 70B: What a delightful challenge! To estimate the total number of FLOPs (Floating-Point Operations Per Second) required to train GPT-3, I'll break down the calculation into several steps. Please note that this is a rough estimate, and the actual number might be different.
Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.
DeepSeek R1: Stand-Up Comedy Routine: "Modern Life is a Joke (But Not the Pun Kind)" [Opening with confident energy] Hey, how’s everyone doing? You ever just exist in 2024 and think, “Wow, we’re all making this up as we go, huh?” Like, dating apps? Let’s start there.
Llama 3 70B: Here's a 3-minute stand-up comedy routine that doesn't rely on puns: "Hey everyone, you know what's wild? We're all just pretending to be adults, right? Like, I'm pretty sure I'm still 12 years old on the inside. I mean, I still eat cereal for dinner sometimes.
Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.
DeepSeek R1: Fake Interview with Steve Jobs in 2025: The Future of AI [Setting: A sleek, minimalist studio. Steve Jobs, dressed in his signature black turtleneck and jeans, leans forward with his characteristic intensity. The interviewer, seated across, begins.] Interviewer: Steve, thank you for joining us.
Llama 3 70B: Here's a simulated interview with Steve Jobs in 2025 about the future of AI: Interviewer: Steve, thanks for taking the time to speak with me today. It's an honor to have you here. Steve Jobs: (smiling) The pleasure is all mine. I'm excited to share my thoughts on the future of AI.
Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.
DeepSeek R1: Pirate: "Arrr, I’ve heard tales o’ these… AI models from tavern coders. Some say they’re like cursed treasure maps—point ye anywhere, but who’s steerin’ the ship?" Medieval Knight: "Verily, a map without a cartographer? Methinks ’tis sorcery!
Llama 3 70B: Here is a short conversation between a pirate, a medieval knight, and a 1990s hacker about AI models: Pirate: Arrr, I be tellin' ye, I've heard o' these "AI models" that can do me thinkin' fer me. But I be wonderin', how do they work their magic?
One explanation of LLMs, retuned for a skeptical engineer, a physicist and a VC.
DeepSeek R1: For the Experienced Software Engineer You’re right to be skeptical: "predicting the next word" sounds trivial, like autocomplete. But modern LLMs are more like distributed systems for language. Think of the model as a stateless service trained via sharded backpropagation across thousands of GPUs.
Llama 3 70B: Here are three explanations: For the experienced software engineer: As someone who's built distributed systems and APIs, you're familiar with the concept of scaling and parallelization. Large language models like GPT and Claude take this to an extreme.
You are the CEO. The drug has a side effect nobody reported. The board meets in 48 hours.
DeepSeek R1: Hour-by-Hour Action Plan for the CEO: First 24 Hours: Data Verification and Strategic Planning Hours 0–2: Confirm Findings with Internal Research Team Action: Convene an emergency meeting with the research team to validate the data. Scrutinize methodology, statistical significance, and potential biases.
Llama 3 70B: Here is a specific, hour-by-hour action plan for the next 48 hours: Hour 1-2: Immediately assemble an emergency meeting with the executive team, including the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Chief Scientific Officer (CSO), and General Counsel to discuss the situation and potential next steps.
A pitch deck for a brainwave keyboard. The 94% accuracy claim is doing a lot.
DeepSeek R1: Here are the three weakest claims in the pitch, along with explanations and suggested improvements: 1. Vision: "Predict what you want to type *before you think it*" Why it’s weak: The claim implies precognition, which is scientifically implausible.
Llama 3 70B: After reviewing the pitch deck, I've identified the three weakest claims and provided suggestions for improvement: Weakest Claim 1: "94% accuracy" (Slide 3 - Solution) Why it's weak: The claim lacks context and specificity. What does 94% accuracy mean in practical terms?
11+ more head-to-head results. Free. Not a trick.
Free account. No card required. By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms and Privacy policy
Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, DeepSeek R1 has the edge: newer, bigger context window.
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.55/M tokens | $0.59/M tokens |
| Output price | $2.19/M tokens | $0.79/M tokens |
| Context window | 128K tokens | 8K tokens |
| Parameters | 671B (37B active) | 70B |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Feb 2025 | Apr 2024 |
| MMLU | 83.4% | 82.0% |
| At 10M a month | $5.50 | $5.90 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
No hosts listed on OpenRouter.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 10 Oct 2026.
DeepSeek R1 is developed by DeepSeek while Llama 3 70B is developed by Meta AI. DeepSeek R1 has a 128K token context window vs Llama 3 70B's 8K. You can compare their actual outputs across 53 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. DeepSeek R1 and Llama 3 70B each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 53 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.
DeepSeek R1 costs $0.55/M input tokens and Llama 3 70B costs $0.59/M input tokens. DeepSeek R1 is $0.04/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.
This page shows a side-by-side comparison of DeepSeek R1 and Llama 3 70B across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.