Model comparison

Llama 3.2 3B vs Qwen2-72B

Qwen2-72B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.0 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.2 3B Meta

28.9

Rank #321 Confirmed

Qwen2-72B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.0

Rank #300 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 3B scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen2-72B in 6 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen2-72B leads 40.8 to 24.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Complete: 28.3% for Llama 3.2 3B and 54% for Qwen2-72B.

Side by side

Llama 3.2 3B and Qwen2-72B specifications
Llama 3.2 3BQwen2-72B
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index28.930.0
Released2024-09-242024-06-07
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window131K—
Max output118K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.05—
Output $ / M tokens$0.33—
Results tracked1826

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen2-72B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 27.6 (#319), Qwen2-72B: 29.1 (#310)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen2-72B
BigCodeBench Instruct23.4%38.5%
LMArena Coding10981196
BigCodeBench Complete28.3%54%
WeirdML—11.3%

Agentic & Tool Use Llama 3.2 3B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#143), Qwen2-72B: 17.0 (#146)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen2-72B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard21.9%—
TheAgentCompany—1.1%
BALROG10.1%—
METR Time Horizons—29.9%

Reasoning Qwen2-72B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 21.0 (#228), Qwen2-72B: 23.2 (#181)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen2-72B
LMArena Hard Prompts10951191
Epoch Capabilities Index—125.28

Math Llama 3.2 3B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 32.4 (#214), Qwen2-72B: 30.2 (#236)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen2-72B
LMArena Math11261235
MATH Level 5—39.1%

Knowledge Llama 3.2 3B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 29.7 (#235), Qwen2-72B: 21.2 (#275)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen2-72B
LMArena Expert10901171
GPQA Diamond—40.8%
MMLU—82.4%

Multilingual Qwen2-72B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 26.2 (#281), Qwen2-72B: 35.9 (#244)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen2-72B
LMArena Non-English10191176
LMArena Chinese10171240
LMArena German10561151
LMArena Russian9491169
LMArena French—1170
LMArena Japanese—1111
LMArena Korean—1083
LMArena Spanish—1169

Instruction Following Qwen2-72B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 56.0 (#275), Qwen2-72B: 61.7 (#241)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen2-72B
LMArena Instruction Following10891181

Long Context Qwen2-72B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#261), Qwen2-72B: 36.1 (#235)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen2-72B
LMArena Longer Query11001192

Writing & Preference Qwen2-72B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 24.7 (#307), Qwen2-72B: 40.8 (#241)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen2-72B
LMArena Text11101203
LMArena Creative Writing10941181
LMArena Multi-Turn11051196
EQ-Bench Creative Writing595—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.2 3B better than Qwen2-72B?

Qwen2-72B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.0 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is Llama 3.2 3B or Qwen2-72B better for coding?

Qwen2-72B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 29.1 versus 27.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 3B and Qwen2-72B share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 3B has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2-72B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper