Model comparison
Grok 3 vs Llama 3.2 3B
Grok 3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.9 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 3 scores higher in 8 categories and Llama 3.2 3B in 1 category; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Grok 3 leads 55.8 to 24.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is BALROG: 29.5% for Grok 3 and 10.1% for Llama 3.2 3B.
- Llama 3.2 3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 3 | Llama 3.2 3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 39.9 | 28.9 |
| Released | 2025-04-09 | 2024-09-24 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 118K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.05 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.33 |
| Results tracked | 40 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 3 leads
Grok 3: 41.9 (#115), Llama 3.2 3B: 27.6 (#319)
| Benchmark | Grok 3 | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1432 | 1098 |
| Aider Polyglot | 53.3% | — |
| WeirdML | 37.2% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 23.4% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 28.3% |
Agentic & Tool Use Grok 3 leads
Grok 3: 30.5 (#76), Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#143)
| Benchmark | Grok 3 | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | 29.5% | 10.1% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 21.9% |
Reasoning Llama 3.2 3B leads
Grok 3: 13.7 (#333), Llama 3.2 3B: 21.0 (#228)
| Benchmark | Grok 3 | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1434 | 1095 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 0% | — |
| SimpleBench | 36.1% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 61.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 5.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 138.33 | — |
Math Grok 3 leads
Grok 3: 38.0 (#145), Llama 3.2 3B: 32.4 (#214)
| Benchmark | Grok 3 | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1391 | 1126 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 55.6% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 46.4% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 88.7% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 3.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 0% | — |
Knowledge Grok 3 leads
Grok 3: 46.2 (#82), Llama 3.2 3B: 29.7 (#235)
| Benchmark | Grok 3 | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1421 | 1090 |
| GPQA Diamond | 75.8% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 78.8% | — |
| Confabulations | 14.2% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 5.8% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 65% | — |
Multilingual Grok 3 leads
Grok 3: 52.3 (#87), Llama 3.2 3B: 26.2 (#281)
| Benchmark | Grok 3 | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1410 | 1019 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1448 | 1017 |
| LMArena German | 1431 | 1056 |
| LMArena Russian | 1416 | 949 |
| LMArena French | 1460 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1387 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1373 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1417 | — |
Instruction Following Grok 3 leads
Grok 3: 75.0 (#73), Llama 3.2 3B: 56.0 (#275)
| Benchmark | Grok 3 | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1409 | 1089 |
| IFEval | 88.4% | — |
Long Context Grok 3 leads
Grok 3: 38.7 (#192), Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#261)
| Benchmark | Grok 3 | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1439 | 1100 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 58.3% | — |
Writing & Preference Grok 3 leads
Grok 3: 55.8 (#141), Llama 3.2 3B: 24.7 (#307)
| Benchmark | Grok 3 | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1426 | 1110 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1414 | 1094 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1186 | 595 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1425 | 1105 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 76.4% | — |
| WildBench | 84.9% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 3 better than Llama 3.2 3B?
Grok 3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.9 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Grok 3 or Llama 3.2 3B better for coding?
Grok 3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.9 versus 27.6 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Grok 3 and Llama 3.2 3B share?
15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 3 has 40 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 3B has 18.