Model comparison
GPT-5.1-Codex vs Llama 3.2 3B
GPT-5.1-Codex is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 29× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.1-Codex's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where GPT-5.1-Codex leads 38.0 to 20.1.
- Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.33 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $10 for GPT-5.1-Codex.
- GPT-5.1-Codex accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 131K.
- Llama 3.2 3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GPT-5.1-Codex | Llama 3.2 3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 38.6 | 28.9 |
| Released | 2025-11-12 | 2024-09-24 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 400K | 131K |
| Max output | 128K | 118K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | $0.05 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.33 |
| Results tracked | 6 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.1-Codex leads
GPT-5.1-Codex: 41.9 (#116), Llama 3.2 3B: 27.6 (#319)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 66% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1337 | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 23.4% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1098 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 28.3% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,245 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use GPT-5.1-Codex leads
GPT-5.1-Codex: 38.0 (#33), Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#143)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 60.4% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 21.9% |
| BALROG | — | 10.1% |
| METR Time Horizons | 70.8% | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
GPT-5.1-Codex: —, Llama 3.2 3B: 21.0 (#228)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1095 |
Math Llama 3.2 3B leads
GPT-5.1-Codex: 30.3 (#235), Llama 3.2 3B: 32.4 (#214)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 9% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1126 |
Knowledge Not comparable
GPT-5.1-Codex: —, Llama 3.2 3B: 29.7 (#235)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1090 |
Multilingual Not comparable
GPT-5.1-Codex: —, Llama 3.2 3B: 26.2 (#281)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1019 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1017 |
| LMArena German | — | 1056 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 949 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GPT-5.1-Codex: —, Llama 3.2 3B: 56.0 (#275)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1089 |
Long Context Not comparable
GPT-5.1-Codex: —, Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#261)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1100 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GPT-5.1-Codex: —, Llama 3.2 3B: 24.7 (#307)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1-Codex | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1110 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1094 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 595 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1105 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.1-Codex better than Llama 3.2 3B?
GPT-5.1-Codex is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 29× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.1-Codex's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.1-Codex 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; GPT-5.1-Codex lists at $1.25 and $10.
Is GPT-5.1-Codex or Llama 3.2 3B better for coding?
GPT-5.1-Codex scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.9 versus 27.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.1-Codex does, with 400K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.1-Codex and Llama 3.2 3B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.1-Codex has 6 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 3B has 18.