Noometry

Model comparison

Command R vs Llama 3.2 3B

Command R is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.0 to 28.4 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 2.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Command R's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

Command R Cohere

31.0

Rank #267 Confirmed

Llama 3.2 3B Meta

28.4

Rank #318 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R scores higher in 6 categories and Llama 3.2 3B in 2 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Command R leads 38.4 to 24.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Complete: 45.2% for Command R and 28.3% for Llama 3.2 3B.
  • Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.33 per million input/output tokens, against $0.15 / $0.60 for Command R.
  • Llama 3.2 3B accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Command RLlama 3.2 3B
ProviderCohereMeta
Noometry Index31.028.4
Released2024-08-302024-09-24
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K131K
Max output4K118K
Input $ / M tokens$0.15$0.05
Output $ / M tokens$0.60$0.33
Results tracked2918

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

Category by category

Coding Command R leads

Command R: 28.8 (#301), Llama 3.2 3B: 27.1 (#314)

BenchmarkCommand RLlama 3.2 3B
BigCodeBench Instruct37.1%23.4%
LMArena Coding11701098
BigCodeBench Complete45.2%28.3%
LiveBench Coding17.9%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Command R: —, Llama 3.2 3B: 19.9 (#135)

BenchmarkCommand RLlama 3.2 3B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—21.9%
BALROG—10.1%

Reasoning Llama 3.2 3B leads

Command R: 13.3 (#329), Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#225)

BenchmarkCommand RLlama 3.2 3B
LMArena Hard Prompts11641095
LiveBench Reasoning21.9%—
DTBench46.4%—
LiveBench Data Analysis33.3%—
LMCA9.2%—
LiveBench27.5%—

Math Llama 3.2 3B leads

Command R: 25.8 (#244), Llama 3.2 3B: 29.9 (#213)

BenchmarkCommand RLlama 3.2 3B
LMArena Math11551126
LiveBench Math19.4%—

Knowledge Command R leads

Command R: 30.5 (#219), Llama 3.2 3B: 29.1 (#232)

BenchmarkCommand RLlama 3.2 3B
LMArena Expert11381090
MMLU65.2%—

Multilingual Command R leads

Command R: 35.9 (#240), Llama 3.2 3B: 26.4 (#276)

BenchmarkCommand RLlama 3.2 3B
LMArena Non-English11741019
LMArena Chinese11821017
LMArena German11761056
LMArena Russian1174949
LMArena French1161—
LMArena Japanese1143—
LMArena Korean1162—
LMArena Spanish1150—

Instruction Following Command R leads

Command R: 58.3 (#256), Llama 3.2 3B: 56.3 (#270)

BenchmarkCommand RLlama 3.2 3B
LMArena Instruction Following11671089
LiveBench Instruction Following55.6%—

Long Context Command R leads

Command R: 36.3 (#226), Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#256)

BenchmarkCommand RLlama 3.2 3B
LMArena Longer Query11981101

Writing & Preference Command R leads

Command R: 38.4 (#248), Llama 3.2 3B: 24.9 (#302)

BenchmarkCommand RLlama 3.2 3B
LMArena Text11871110
LMArena Creative Writing11701094
LMArena Multi-Turn11631105
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—595
LiveBench Language16.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Command R better than Llama 3.2 3B?

Command R is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.0 to 28.4 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 2.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Command R's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Command R 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; Command R lists at $0.15 and $0.60.

Is Command R or Llama 3.2 3B better for coding?

Command R scores higher on coding benchmarks: 28.8 versus 27.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Llama 3.2 3B does, with 131K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Command R and Llama 3.2 3B share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R has 29 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 3B has 18.

Related comparisons

Go deeper