Model comparison
Llama 3.1-70B vs Llama 3.2 3B
Llama 3.1-70B and Llama 3.2 3B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (29.6 vs 28.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.1-70B scores higher in 7 categories and Llama 3.2 3B in 2 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Llama 3.2 3B leads 32.4 to 13.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Complete: 54.8% for Llama 3.1-70B and 28.3% for Llama 3.2 3B.
- Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.33 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $0.40 for Llama 3.1-70B.
- Llama 3.2 3B accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| Llama 3.1-70B | Llama 3.2 3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 28.9 |
| Released | 2024-07-23 | 2024-09-24 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 131K |
| Max output | 4K | 118K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.40 | $0.05 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.40 | $0.33 |
| Results tracked | 35 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Llama 3.1-70B leads
Llama 3.1-70B: 30.3 (#296), Llama 3.2 3B: 27.6 (#319)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 46.1% | 23.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1260 | 1098 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 54.8% | 28.3% |
| WeirdML | 9% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Llama 3.1-70B leads
Llama 3.1-70B: 25.1 (#112), Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#143)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | 27.9% | 10.1% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 21.9% |
| TheAgentCompany | 6.9% | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
Llama 3.1-70B: 21.6 (#220), Llama 3.2 3B: 21.0 (#228)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1241 | 1095 |
| DTBench | 60% | — |
| LMCA | 14.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 125.92 | — |
Math Llama 3.2 3B leads
Llama 3.1-70B: 13.5 (#304), Llama 3.2 3B: 32.4 (#214)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1252 | 1126 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 3.6% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 21% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 36.7% | — |
Knowledge Llama 3.2 3B leads
Llama 3.1-70B: 24.2 (#269), Llama 3.2 3B: 29.7 (#235)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1209 | 1090 |
| GPQA Diamond | 44.2% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 65.3% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 42.6% | — |
| MMLU | 80.1% | — |
Multilingual Llama 3.1-70B leads
Llama 3.1-70B: 38.8 (#225), Llama 3.2 3B: 26.2 (#281)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1219 | 1019 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1215 | 1017 |
| LMArena German | 1222 | 1056 |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | 949 |
| LMArena French | 1261 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1132 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1140 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1253 | — |
Instruction Following Llama 3.1-70B leads
Llama 3.1-70B: 65.3 (#223), Llama 3.2 3B: 56.0 (#275)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1231 | 1089 |
| IFEval | 82.1% | — |
Long Context Llama 3.1-70B leads
Llama 3.1-70B: 37.6 (#214), Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#261)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1241 | 1100 |
Writing & Preference Llama 3.1-70B leads
Llama 3.1-70B: 35.4 (#267), Llama 3.2 3B: 24.7 (#307)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1261 | 1110 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1232 | 1094 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 784 | 595 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1256 | 1105 |
| WildBench | 75.8% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.1-70B better than Llama 3.2 3B?
Llama 3.1-70B and Llama 3.2 3B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (29.6 vs 28.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Which is cheaper, Llama 3.1-70B 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; Llama 3.1-70B lists at $0.40 and $0.40.
Is Llama 3.1-70B or Llama 3.2 3B better for coding?
Llama 3.1-70B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 30.3 versus 27.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Llama 3.2 3B does, with 131K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.1-70B and Llama 3.2 3B share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.1-70B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 3B has 18.