GPT-4o vs Llama-3.1-70B

Every finance benchmark where both have a score (OpenAI and Meta). Data refreshed 2 Nov 2026.

Shared benchmarks
2
GPT-4o only
4
Llama-3.1-70B only
0

Shared benchmarks, side by side

Each benchmark is drawn on its own scale. Bars are not comparable across rows.

  • GPT-4o
  • Llama-3.1-70B

  • K-FinHallu binary detection F1, higher is better

    GPT-4o:0.733
    Llama-3.1-70B:0.735 (better)

  • Open FinLLM Leaderboard balanced score (mean of text/vision/audio averages), higher is better

    GPT-4o:46.0 (better)
    Llama-3.1-70B:14.1
Benchmark
GPT-4o
Llama-3.1-70B

7 benchmarks, 2 scored for both. Bold marks the better score where both have one.

K-FinHallubinary detection F1, higher is better
0.733
Paper Table 3 (Reported by the authors, 28 May 2026)
0.735
Paper Table 3 (Reported by the authors, 28 May 2026)
Open FinLLM Leaderboardbalanced score (mean of text/vision/audio averages), higher is better
46.0
Open FinLLM Leaderboard (scores.json) (Official board, 16 Apr 2026)
14.1
Open FinLLM Leaderboard (scores.json) (Official board, 16 Apr 2026)
FinanceQAaccuracy (total, 0-1), higher is better
0.392
Paper Table 1 (Reported by the authors, 30 Jan 2025)
Not scored
BizFinBenchaverage score across 9 tasks, higher is better
71.8
Paper Table 3 (Reported by the authors, 26 May 2025)
Not scored
FinLFQAevidence attribution F1, higher is better
56.5
Paper Table 6 (Reported by the authors, 7 Oct 2025)
Not scored
FinLFQALLM-as-judge answer score (/15), higher is better
13.5
Paper Table 6 (Reported by the authors, 7 Oct 2025)
Not scored
InvestorBenchcumulative return %, higher is better
39.0
Paper Table 2 (Reported by the authors, 24 Dec 2024)
Not scored

Scores from different benchmarks use different scales and are not added up. Settings can differ between sources; see each leaderboard for details.