Model comparison
Llama 3.2 3B vs o1-mini
o1-mini is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.7 to 28.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 3B scores higher in 1 category and o1-mini in 8 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where o1-mini leads 48.6 to 24.9.
- Llama 3.2 3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Llama 3.2 3B | o1-mini | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 28.4 | 33.7 |
| Released | 2024-09-24 | 2024-09-12 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 131K | — |
| Max output | 118K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.05 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.33 | — |
| Results tracked | 18 | 39 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding o1-mini leads
Llama 3.2 3B: 27.1 (#314), o1-mini: 35.1 (#218)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | o1-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1098 | 1362 |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 32.9% |
| WeirdML | — | 36.3% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 23.4% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 48% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 28.3% | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 89% |
| MBPP+ | — | 78.8% |
Agentic & Tool Use o1-mini leads
Llama 3.2 3B: 19.9 (#135), o1-mini: 24.3 (#112)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | o1-mini |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 21.9% | — |
| Cybench | — | 10% |
| BALROG | 10.1% | — |
Reasoning Llama 3.2 3B leads
Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#225), o1-mini: 8.9 (#340)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | o1-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1095 | 1333 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 0.8% |
| SimpleBench | — | 18.1% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 14% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 72.3% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 57.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 135.82 |
| LiveBench | — | 57.8% |
Math o1-mini leads
Llama 3.2 3B: 29.9 (#213), o1-mini: 33.7 (#168)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | o1-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1126 | 1358 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 46.9% |
| LiveBench Math | — | 62% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 89.2% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 1.7% |
Knowledge o1-mini leads
Llama 3.2 3B: 29.1 (#232), o1-mini: 34.8 (#180)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | o1-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1090 | 1316 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 62.4% |
| Confabulations | — | 18.6% |
Multilingual o1-mini leads
Llama 3.2 3B: 26.4 (#276), o1-mini: 43.8 (#177)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | o1-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1019 | 1289 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1017 | 1314 |
| LMArena German | 1056 | 1278 |
| LMArena Russian | 949 | 1283 |
| LMArena French | — | 1292 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1245 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1223 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1302 |
Instruction Following o1-mini leads
Llama 3.2 3B: 56.3 (#270), o1-mini: 67.0 (#200)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | o1-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1089 | 1304 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 65.4% |
Long Context o1-mini leads
Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#256), o1-mini: 40.1 (#156)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | o1-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1101 | 1321 |
Writing & Preference o1-mini leads
Llama 3.2 3B: 24.9 (#302), o1-mini: 48.6 (#196)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | o1-mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1110 | 1317 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1094 | 1244 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1105 | 1314 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 64.9% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 595 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 40.9% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.2 3B better than o1-mini?
o1-mini is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.7 to 28.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Llama 3.2 3B or o1-mini better for coding?
o1-mini scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.1 versus 27.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 3B and o1-mini share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 3B has 18 scored results on Noometry and o1-mini has 39.