Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs Llama 3.2 3B

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.7 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 38× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Google

56.7

Rank #23 Confirmed

Llama 3.2 3B Meta

28.9

Rank #321 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview 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 reasoning, where Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads 71.7 to 21.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is BALROG: 57% for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview and 10.1% for Llama 3.2 3B.
  • Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.33 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $12 for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview.
  • Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.
  • Llama 3.2 3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 3.1 Pro PreviewLlama 3.2 3B
ProviderGoogleMeta
Noometry Index56.728.9
Released2026-02-192024-09-24
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M131K
Max output66K118K
Input $ / M tokens$2$0.05
Output $ / M tokens$12$0.33
Results tracked7118

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

Category by category

Coding Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 42.5 (#99), Llama 3.2 3B: 27.6 (#319)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewLlama 3.2 3B
LMArena Coding14841098
SWE-bench Verified75.6%—
DeepSWE11.7%—
LMArena WebDev1447—
SciCode58.9%—
GSO22.6%—
WeirdML72.1%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—23.4%
MirrorCode8.9%—
BigCodeBench Complete—28.3%
ALE-Bench1,161—
AlgoTune2.02—

Agentic & Tool Use Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 37.7 (#34), Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#143)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewLlama 3.2 3B
BALROG57%10.1%
Terminal-Bench80.2%—
APEX-Agents35.3%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—21.9%
τ²-bench Banking26%—
DeepResearch Bench47.8%—
PostTrainBench22%—
ExploitBench26.1%—
GBAEval0.8%—
GDP.pdf17%—
LMArena Search1211—
METR Time Horizons77%—
Vending-Bench 23,774—

Reasoning Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 71.7 (#12), Llama 3.2 3B: 21.0 (#228)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewLlama 3.2 3B
LMArena Hard Prompts14851095
ARC-AGI-277.1%—
SimpleBench79.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)97.4%—
ARC-AGI-198%—
CritPt17.7%—
Chess Puzzles55%—
EnigmaEval36.8%—
Thematic Generalization79.4%—
EBR-Bench14.3%—
Mystery Game Puzzles34%—
DTBench97.1%—
LMCA53.8%—
Epoch Capabilities Index154.77—
ForecastBench59—

Math Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 62.1 (#34), Llama 3.2 3B: 32.4 (#214)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewLlama 3.2 3B
LMArena Math14851126
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)59.6%—
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions86.5%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202595.6%—
ProofBench26%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)36.9%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)16.7%—

Knowledge Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 71.8 (#3), Llama 3.2 3B: 29.7 (#235)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewLlama 3.2 3B
LMArena Expert14851090
GPQA Diamond94.4%—
Humanity's Last Exam46.4%—
SimpleQA Verified73.5%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.4%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 37.9 (#69), Llama 3.2 3B: —

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewLlama 3.2 3B
LMArena Vision1296—
Blueprint-Bench 226.5%—
Furniture Assembly26.7%—
LMArena Document1444—

Multilingual Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 57.0 (#12), Llama 3.2 3B: 26.2 (#281)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewLlama 3.2 3B
LMArena Non-English14771019
LMArena Chinese15291017
LMArena German14911056
LMArena Russian1498949
LMArena French1487—
LMArena Japanese1493—
LMArena Korean1455—
LMArena Spanish1479—

Instruction Following Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 77.0 (#32), Llama 3.2 3B: 56.0 (#275)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewLlama 3.2 3B
LMArena Instruction Following14661089

Long Context Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 47.4 (#18), Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#261)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewLlama 3.2 3B
LMArena Longer Query14831100
CL-bench20.8%—
CL-bench Life16.9%—

Writing & Preference Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 66.1 (#37), Llama 3.2 3B: 24.7 (#307)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewLlama 3.2 3B
LMArena Text14811110
LMArena Creative Writing14821094
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1491595
LMArena Multi-Turn14881105
EQ-Bench 41142—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview better than Llama 3.2 3B?

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.7 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 38× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview 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; Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview lists at $2 and $12.

Is Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview or Llama 3.2 3B better for coding?

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.5 versus 27.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview does, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview and Llama 3.2 3B share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview has 71 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 3B has 18.

Related comparisons

Go deeper