Model comparison
Claude 2.1 vs Llama 3.2 3B
Llama 3.2 3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 28.9 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- The widest gap is in math, where Llama 3.2 3B leads 32.4 to 10.2.
- Llama 3.2 3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 25.2 | 28.9 |
| Released | 2023-11-21 | 2024-09-24 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 118K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.05 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.33 |
| Results tracked | 7 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Llama 3.2 3B leads
Claude 2.1: 26.2 (#327), Llama 3.2 3B: 27.6 (#319)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 7.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 23.4% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1098 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 28.3% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#143)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 21.9% |
| BALROG | — | 10.1% |
Reasoning Too close to call
Claude 2.1: 21.4 (#221), Llama 3.2 3B: 21.0 (#228)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1095 |
| DTBench | 51% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.27 | — |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |
Math Llama 3.2 3B leads
Claude 2.1: 10.2 (#315), Llama 3.2 3B: 32.4 (#214)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1126 |
Knowledge Llama 3.2 3B leads
Claude 2.1: 15.4 (#292), Llama 3.2 3B: 29.7 (#235)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1090 |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Llama 3.2 3B: 26.2 (#281)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1019 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1017 |
| LMArena German | — | 1056 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 949 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Llama 3.2 3B: 56.0 (#275)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1089 |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#261)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1100 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Llama 3.2 3B: 24.7 (#307)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1110 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1094 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 595 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1105 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 2.1 better than Llama 3.2 3B?
Llama 3.2 3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 28.9 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 2.1 or Llama 3.2 3B better for coding?
Llama 3.2 3B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 27.6 versus 26.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Llama 3.2 3B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 3B has 18.