Noometry

Model comparison

Llama 3.2 3B vs Qwen Max

Qwen Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 34.7 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 23× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.2 3B Meta

28.9

Rank #321 Confirmed

Qwen Max Alibaba (Qwen)

34.7

Rank #230 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 3B scores higher in 1 category and Qwen Max in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen Max leads 47.8 to 24.7.
  • Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.33 per million input/output tokens, against $1.60 / $6.40 for Qwen Max.
  • Llama 3.2 3B accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 33K.
  • Llama 3.2 3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Llama 3.2 3BQwen Max
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index28.934.7
Released2024-09-242024-04-03
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window131K33K
Max output118K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.05$1.60
Output $ / M tokens$0.33$6.40
Results tracked1823

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen Max leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 27.6 (#319), Qwen Max: 30.7 (#292)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen Max
LMArena Coding10981288
Aider Polyglot—21.8%
BigCodeBench Instruct23.4%—
BigCodeBench Complete28.3%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#143), Qwen Max: —

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen Max
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard21.9%—
BALROG10.1%—

Reasoning Qwen Max leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 21.0 (#228), Qwen Max: 25.1 (#151)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen Max
LMArena Hard Prompts10951269

Math Llama 3.2 3B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 32.4 (#214), Qwen Max: 22.3 (#276)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen Max
LMArena Math11261275
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—16.1%
MATH Level 5—67.2%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—1%

Knowledge Too close to call

Llama 3.2 3B: 29.7 (#235), Qwen Max: 30.3 (#228)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen Max
LMArena Expert10901248
GPQA Diamond—56.1%

Multilingual Qwen Max leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 26.2 (#281), Qwen Max: 41.8 (#202)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen Max
LMArena Non-English10191263
LMArena Chinese10171254
LMArena German10561254
LMArena Russian9491274
LMArena French—1330
LMArena Japanese—1205
LMArena Korean—1142
LMArena Spanish—1290

Instruction Following Qwen Max leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 56.0 (#275), Qwen Max: 66.5 (#208)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen Max
LMArena Instruction Following10891262

Long Context Qwen Max leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#261), Qwen Max: 39.4 (#180)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen Max
LMArena Longer Query11001288
Fiction.LiveBench—66.7%

Writing & Preference Qwen Max leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 24.7 (#307), Qwen Max: 47.8 (#205)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen Max
LMArena Text11101282
LMArena Creative Writing10941248
LMArena Multi-Turn11051277
EQ-Bench Creative Writing595—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.2 3B better than Qwen Max?

Qwen Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 34.7 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 23× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 3B or Qwen Max?

Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.33 per million output tokens; Qwen Max lists at $1.60 and $6.40.

Is Llama 3.2 3B or Qwen Max better for coding?

Qwen Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 30.7 versus 27.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Llama 3.2 3B does, with 131K tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 3B and Qwen Max share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 3B has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Max has 23.

Related comparisons

Go deeper