Battle of the Models

Compare specific LLM models, context windows, and capabilities.

No matches found
VS
No matches found

TinyLlama

llamafile

Intelligence Score 64/100
Model Popularity 0 votes
Context Window Local
Pricing Model Free / Open
View Provider Analysis →

GPT-4o (via routing)

S-TIER

Requesty

Intelligence Score 92/100
Context Window 128K
Pricing Model Commercial / Paid
Model Popularity 0 votes
View Provider Analysis →
FINAL VERDICT

GPT-4o (via routing) Wins

With an intelligence score of 92/100 vs 64/100, GPT-4o (via routing) outperforms TinyLlama by 28 points.

Clear Winner: Significant performance advantage for GPT-4o (via routing).
HEAD-TO-HEAD

Detailed Comparison

Feature
TinyLlama
GPT-4o (via routing)
Context Window
Local 128K
Architecture
Transformer (Open Weight) Transformer (Proprietary)
Est. MMLU Score
~60-64% ~85-87%
Release Date
2024 May-Nov 2024
Pricing Model
Free Tier Paid / Commercial
Rate Limit (RPM)
Hardware dependent 60 RPM
Daily Limit
Unlimited Credit-based
Capabilities
No specific data
Vision
Performance Tier
C-Tier (Good) A-Tier (Excellent)
Speed Estimate
Medium Medium
Primary Use Case
General Purpose General Purpose
Model Size
Undisclosed ~1.8T (estimated)
Limitations
  • File sizes are large (contain weights)
  • CLI usage often required
  • Windows requires appending .exe
  • Requires underlying provider API keys
  • Free credit amount is limited
  • Routing adds minimal latency
Key Strengths
  • Executable weight files (multi-OS)
  • Integrated Web UI
  • OpenAI Compatible API server
  • AI Router: automatic provider failover
  • Prompt caching for cost savings
  • Multi-provider load balancing

Similar Comparisons

TinyLlama
vs
GPT-4o
GPT-4o (via routing)
vs
GPT-4o
TinyLlama
vs
LLaVA 1.5
GPT-4o (via routing)
vs
LLaVA 1.5
TinyLlama
vs
Mistral 7B
GPT-4o (via routing)
vs
Mistral 7B
GPT-4o (via routing)
vs
GPT-4o (via Coze)
GPT-4o (via routing)
vs
Claude 3.5 Sonnet (via routing)
GPT-4o (via routing)
vs
Llama 3.1 70B (via routing)