Model comparison

Llama 3.2 3B vs MiniMax M1

MiniMax M1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.3 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 8.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiniMax M1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 13 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.2 3B

Summary

They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 3B scores higher in 0 categories and MiniMax M1 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiniMax M1 leads 53.1 to 24.7.
Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.33 per million input/output tokens, against $0.55 / $2.20 for MiniMax M1.
MiniMax M1 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

Llama 3.2 3B and MiniMax M1 specifications
	Llama 3.2 3B	MiniMax M1
Provider	Meta	MiniMax
Noometry Index	28.9	40.3
Released	2024-09-24	2025-06-13
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	131K	1M
Max output	118K	40K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.05	$0.55
Output $ / M tokens	$0.33	$2.20
Results tracked	18	18

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

Category by category

Coding MiniMax M1 leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 27.6 (#319), MiniMax M1: 39.9 (#153)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	MiniMax M1
LMArena Coding	1098	1359
BigCodeBench Instruct	23.4%	—
BigCodeBench Complete	28.3%	—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#143), MiniMax M1: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	MiniMax M1
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	21.9%	—
BALROG	10.1%	—

Reasoning MiniMax M1 leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 21.0 (#228), MiniMax M1: 26.9 (#126)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	MiniMax M1
LMArena Hard Prompts	1095	1339

Math MiniMax M1 leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 32.4 (#214), MiniMax M1: 37.5 (#151)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	MiniMax M1
LMArena Math	1126	1361

Knowledge MiniMax M1 leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 29.7 (#235), MiniMax M1: 36.4 (#170)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	MiniMax M1
LMArena Expert	1090	1317

Multilingual MiniMax M1 leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 26.2 (#281), MiniMax M1: 45.8 (#163)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	MiniMax M1
LMArena Non-English	1019	1319
LMArena Chinese	1017	1360
LMArena German	1056	1350
LMArena Russian	949	1329
LMArena French	—	1370
LMArena Japanese	—	1217
LMArena Korean	—	1266
LMArena Spanish	—	1353

Instruction Following MiniMax M1 leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 56.0 (#275), MiniMax M1: 69.3 (#174)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	MiniMax M1
LMArena Instruction Following	1089	1312

Long Context MiniMax M1 leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#261), MiniMax M1: 41.4 (#141)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	MiniMax M1
LMArena Longer Query	1100	1326
Fiction.LiveBench	—	69.4%

Writing & Preference MiniMax M1 leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 24.7 (#307), MiniMax M1: 53.1 (#161)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	MiniMax M1
LMArena Text	1110	1343
LMArena Creative Writing	1094	1298
LMArena Multi-Turn	1105	1335
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	595	—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.2 3B better than MiniMax M1?

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 3B or MiniMax M1?

Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.33 per million output tokens; MiniMax M1 lists at $0.55 and $2.20.

Is Llama 3.2 3B or MiniMax M1 better for coding?

MiniMax M1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.9 versus 27.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiniMax M1 does, with 1M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 3B and MiniMax M1 share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 3B has 18 scored results on Noometry and MiniMax M1 has 18.