Model comparison
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Llama 3.2 3B
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.8 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 2.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when DeepSeek V4.1 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeek
MetaSummary
- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores higher in 9 categories and Llama 3.2 3B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads 65.4 to 24.7.
- Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.33 per million input/output tokens, against $0.15 / $0.60 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash.
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
Side by side
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Llama 3.2 3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 52.8 | 28.9 |
| Released | 2026-09-09 | 2024-09-24 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 131K |
| Max output | 393K | 118K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $0.05 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $0.33 |
| Results tracked | 37 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 52.9 (#32), Llama 3.2 3B: 27.6 (#319)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1506 | 1098 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1619 | — |
| SciCode | 51.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 23.4% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 28.3% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,092 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 31.2 (#69), Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#143)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 39.5% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 21.9% |
| BALROG | — | 10.1% |
| GDP.pdf | 19.8% | — |
Reasoning DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 50.2 (#36), Llama 3.2 3B: 21.0 (#228)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1483 | 1095 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 89.6% | — |
| CritPt | 14.3% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 43% | — |
| DTBench | 89.9% | — |
| LMCA | 47% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 46.3% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 154.9 | — |
Math DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 66.7 (#25), Llama 3.2 3B: 32.4 (#214)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1477 | 1126 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 67.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 54% | — |
Knowledge DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 57.9 (#38), Llama 3.2 3B: 29.7 (#235)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1506 | 1090 |
| GPQA Diamond | 89.8% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 39.1 (#61), Llama 3.2 3B: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1277 | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 34.2% | — |
Multilingual DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 55.0 (#35), Llama 3.2 3B: 26.2 (#281)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1448 | 1019 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1497 | 1017 |
| LMArena German | 1484 | 1056 |
| LMArena Russian | 1471 | 949 |
| LMArena French | 1452 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1412 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1452 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1459 | — |
Instruction Following DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 77.3 (#26), Llama 3.2 3B: 56.0 (#275)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1474 | 1089 |
Long Context DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 45.2 (#47), Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#261)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1475 | 1100 |
Writing & Preference DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 65.4 (#48), Llama 3.2 3B: 24.7 (#307)
| Benchmark | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1462 | 1110 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1435 | 1094 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1540 | 595 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1457 | 1105 |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash better than Llama 3.2 3B?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.8 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 2.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when DeepSeek V4.1 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Llama 3.2 3B?
Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.33 per million output tokens; DeepSeek V4.1 Flash lists at $0.15 and $0.60.
Is DeepSeek V4.1 Flash or Llama 3.2 3B better for coding?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.9 versus 27.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and Llama 3.2 3B share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has 37 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 3B has 18.