Llama 3.1 Base on HumanEval: score, rank and what it means
Llama 3.1 Base scores 76.4 on HumanEval, placing it #322 of 600 models in the index. The benchmark average is 74.0 and the leader is GPT-5.2 Pro at 96.8.
Score distribution
The chart shows the top 10 models on HumanEval, with Llama 3.1 Base highlighted. Longer bars mean higher scores.
Top 10 leaderboard
| # | Model | Provider | Context | Input / 1M | Avg score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | GPT-5.2 Pro | OpenAI | 2000000 | $21.32 | 89.6 |
| 2 | Gemini 3 Pro Pro | Google DeepMind | 200000 | $19.80 | 87.3 |
| 3 | o4 Max | OpenAI | 2000000 | $19.51 | 86.2 |
| 4 | Grok 4 Reasoning | xAI | 2000000 | $19.67 | 87.8 |
| 5 | Claude Opus 4.5 | Anthropic | 400000 | $19.42 | 87.7 |
| 6 | GPT-5.2 Max | OpenAI | 1000000 | $21.39 | 89.2 |
| 7 | Claude Opus 4.5 Pro | Anthropic | 200000 | $20.98 | 89.1 |
| 8 | Grok 4 Max | xAI | 2000000 | $19.70 | 86.6 |
| 9 | GPT-5.2 Turbo | OpenAI | 1000000 | $20.73 | 87.4 |
| 10 | GPT-5.1 Reasoning | OpenAI | 400000 | $20.27 | 88.3 |
What this score means
On HumanEval, Llama 3.1 Base sits at #322 of 600. The leader, GPT-5.2 Pro, scores 96.8, so the gap to the top is 20.4 points. The median model in this index scores 77.4, which puts Llama 3.1 Base below the midpoint.
Meta AI models average 73.2 on this benchmark. Llama 3.1 Base is 3.2 points above that provider line, so it is a stronger result than the average Meta AI model.
Among multimodal models, the average is 82.2. Llama 3.1 Base is 5.8 points below that group. This is the more useful comparison if you are shortlisting within the same tier rather than across the whole index.
Read a 76.4 as a relative signal, not an absolute guarantee. Benchmark scores depend on prompt format, evaluation harness and contamination controls. Use this page to narrow the shortlist, then test the model on your own data.
Price context
At $3.39 per million input tokens, Llama 3.1 Base is below the median input price of $4.00 across the 600 models scored on HumanEval. The models immediately around it in the ranking are shown below so you can compare score and price together.
| Model | Provider | Context | Input / 1M | Avg score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OLMo 2 Instruct | Allen Institute for AI | 32768 | $3.03 | 71.7 |
| Firefunction Pro | Fireworks AI | 16384 | $9.05 | 72.9 |
| Claude 3.7 Sonnet Mini | Anthropic | 32768 | $9.74 | 73.0 |
| Command A Mini | Cohere | 8192 | $8.12 | 71.0 |
| Llama 3.1 Base | Meta AI | 32768 | $3.39 | 72.2 |
| Claude Haiku 4.5 Mini | Anthropic | 16384 | $8.76 | 71.6 |
| Fusion Turbo | OpenRouter | 8192 | $8.55 | 71.7 |
Other benchmarks for Llama 3.1 Base
| Benchmark | Score | Rank | Percentile | Relative |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-Pro | 75.2 | 328 | 45th | |
| GPQA Diamond | 68.3 | 308 | 49th | |
| SWE-bench Verified | 59.9 | 329 | 45th | |
| MATH-500 | 77.0 | 277 | 54th | |
| AIME 2025 | 64.7 | 341 | 43th | |
| LiveCodeBench | 61.7 | 353 | 41th | |
| IFEval | 83.0 | 242 | 60th | |
| TruthfulQA | 75.7 | 315 | 48th | |
| HellaSwag | 81.9 | 351 | 42th | |
| MMMU | 69.9 | 308 | 49th | |
| Arena Elo | 1369.7 | 318 | 47th |
FAQ
What score does Llama 3.1 Base get on HumanEval?
Llama 3.1 Base scores 76.4 on HumanEval in this index. The benchmark average is 74.0 and the top score is 96.8.
How does Llama 3.1 Base rank on HumanEval?
It ranks #322 of 600 models, in the 46th percentile. The leader is GPT-5.2 Pro at 96.8.
Is Llama 3.1 Base good at HumanEval?
It is below the median for this benchmark, so test it carefully before relying on it for this capability. The result should be read alongside its price and context window.
How is the HumanEval score calculated?
HumanEval is a coding benchmark. Scores in this index are modelled estimates on a 0–100 scale (or Elo for Arena), derived from capability tier and benchmark difficulty. They are not official leaderboard results.
What does Llama 3.1 Base cost?
Llama 3.1 Base costs $3.39 per million input tokens and $16.57 per million output tokens.