Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Llama 3.2 3B

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 83× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic

50.5

Rank #47 Confirmed

Llama 3.2 3B Meta

28.9

Rank #321 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher in 9 categories and Llama 3.2 3B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Claude Opus 4.5 leads 68.1 to 24.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard: 77.5% for Claude Opus 4.5 and 21.9% for Llama 3.2 3B.
  • Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.33 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.5.
  • Claude Opus 4.5 accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 131K.
  • Llama 3.2 3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.5Llama 3.2 3B
ProviderAnthropicMeta
Noometry Index50.528.9
Released2025-11-012024-09-24
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window200K131K
Max output64K118K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.05
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.33
Results tracked6918

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 54.8 (#27), Llama 3.2 3B: 27.6 (#319)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Llama 3.2 3B
LMArena Coding15041098
SWE-bench Verified76.7%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)76.8%—
LMArena WebDev1494—
SWE-bench Multilingual70.7%—
GSO26.5%—
WeirdML63.7%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—23.4%
BigCodeBench Complete—28.3%
ALE-Bench1,025—
AlgoTune1.77—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 47.3 (#12), Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#143)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Llama 3.2 3B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard77.5%21.9%
BALROG43.5%10.1%
Terminal-Bench63.1%—
GDPval45.5%—
Remote Labor Index3.8%—
τ²-bench Airline84%—
τ²-bench Banking24.7%—
τ²-bench Retail79.6%—
τ²-bench Telecom92.3%—
Cybench82%—
DeepResearch Bench54.8%—
OSWorld66.3%—
LMArena Search1180—
METR Time Horizons75%—
Vending-Bench 24,967—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 42.6 (#51), Llama 3.2 3B: 21.0 (#228)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Llama 3.2 3B
LMArena Hard Prompts14761095
ARC-AGI-237.6%—
SimpleBench62%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.2%—
NYT Connections (extended)52.5%—
ARC-AGI-180%—
Chess Puzzles12%—
EnigmaEval11.9%—
EBR-Bench14.3%—
Mystery Game Puzzles22%—
DTBench89.9%—
LMCA44.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index150.09—
ForecastBench60.7—

Math Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 38.6 (#132), Llama 3.2 3B: 32.4 (#214)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Llama 3.2 3B
LMArena Math14631126
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)34.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 44.9%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202586.1%—
ProofBench36%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)20.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 56.5 (#44), Llama 3.2 3B: 29.7 (#235)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Llama 3.2 3B
LMArena Expert14871090
GPQA Diamond86%—
Humanity's Last Exam25.2%—
SimpleQA Verified45.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.9%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 31.4 (#107), Llama 3.2 3B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Llama 3.2 3B
GeoBench75%—
VPCT40%—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1462—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 54.3 (#47), Llama 3.2 3B: 26.2 (#281)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Llama 3.2 3B
LMArena Non-English14381019
LMArena Chinese14701017
LMArena German14491056
LMArena Russian1447949
LMArena French1471—
LMArena Japanese1416—
LMArena Korean1424—
LMArena Spanish1458—

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 77.5 (#19), Llama 3.2 3B: 56.0 (#275)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Llama 3.2 3B
LMArena Instruction Following14781089

Long Context Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 46.5 (#22), Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#261)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Llama 3.2 3B
LMArena Longer Query14801100
CL-bench21.1%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 68.1 (#28), Llama 3.2 3B: 24.7 (#307)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5Llama 3.2 3B
LMArena Text14511110
LMArena Creative Writing14451094
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1687595
LMArena Multi-Turn14661105

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than Llama 3.2 3B?

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 83× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.5 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; Claude Opus 4.5 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.5 or Llama 3.2 3B better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 54.8 versus 27.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.5 does, with 200K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.5 and Llama 3.2 3B share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.5 has 69 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 3B has 18.

Related comparisons

Go deeper