Llama 3.1 on HumanEval: score, rank and what it means
Llama 3.1 scores 81.8 on HumanEval, placing it #189 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 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 sits at #189 of 600. The leader, GPT-5.2 Pro, scores 96.8, so the gap to the top is 15.0 points. The median model in this index scores 77.4, which puts Llama 3.1 above the midpoint.
Meta AI models average 73.2 on this benchmark. Llama 3.1 is 8.6 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 is 0.4 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 81.8 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 $4.16 per million input tokens, Llama 3.1 is above 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Llama 3.3 Instruct | Meta AI | 128000 | $4.33 | 76.6 |
| Sonar Max | Perplexity | 32768 | $11.60 | 77.8 |
| Reka Core | Reka AI | 32768 | $12.17 | 77.4 |
| Sonar | Perplexity | 200000 | $10.57 | 76.0 |
| Llama 3.1 | Meta AI | 200000 | $4.16 | 76.3 |
| o4 Mini | OpenAI | 200000 | $11.92 | 77.7 |
| ERNIE 4.0 Pro | Baidu | 200000 | $12.58 | 77.5 |
Other benchmarks for Llama 3.1
| Benchmark | Score | Rank | Percentile | Relative |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-Pro | 78.8 | 220 | 63th | |
| GPQA Diamond | 69.8 | 272 | 55th | |
| SWE-bench Verified | 67.9 | 147 | 76th | |
| MATH-500 | 82.8 | 150 | 75th | |
| AIME 2025 | 69.5 | 268 | 55th | |
| LiveCodeBench | 66.7 | 258 | 57th | |
| IFEval | 82.3 | 267 | 56th | |
| TruthfulQA | 78.4 | 240 | 60th | |
| HellaSwag | 87.2 | 166 | 72th | |
| MMMU | 74.2 | 180 | 70th | |
| Arena Elo | 1407.6 | 187 | 69th |
FAQ
What score does Llama 3.1 get on HumanEval?
Llama 3.1 scores 81.8 on HumanEval in this index. The benchmark average is 74.0 and the top score is 96.8.
How does Llama 3.1 rank on HumanEval?
It ranks #189 of 600 models, in the 69th percentile. The leader is GPT-5.2 Pro at 96.8.
Is Llama 3.1 good at HumanEval?
Yes, relative to the index: it is above the median and inside the top half of scores. 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 cost?
Llama 3.1 costs $4.16 per million input tokens and $15.79 per million output tokens.