Model comparison

Llama 3.2 3B vs Mistral Medium 3.1

Mistral Medium 3.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.5 to 28.4 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 6.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Mistral Medium 3.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 1 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.2 3B

Summary

They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Llama 3.2 3B scores higher in 1 category and Mistral Medium 3.1 in 1 category; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Mistral Medium 3.1 leads 55.6 to 24.9.
Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.33 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $2 for Mistral Medium 3.1.
Llama 3.2 3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Llama 3.2 3B and Mistral Medium 3.1 specifications
	Llama 3.2 3B	Mistral Medium 3.1
Provider	Meta	Mistral AI
Noometry Index	28.4	31.5
Released	2024-09-24	—
Weights	Open	Proprietary
Context window	131K	131K
Max output	118K	105K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.05	$0.40
Output $ / M tokens	$0.33	$2
Results tracked	18	3

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 27.1 (#314), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Mistral Medium 3.1
BigCodeBench Instruct	23.4%	—
LMArena Coding	1098	—
BigCodeBench Complete	28.3%	—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 19.9 (#135), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Mistral Medium 3.1
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	21.9%	—
BALROG	10.1%	—

Reasoning Llama 3.2 3B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#225), Mistral Medium 3.1: 10.1 (#336)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Mistral Medium 3.1
NYT Connections (extended)	—	6.5%
Thematic Generalization	—	20.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1095	—

Math Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 29.9 (#213), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Mistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Math	1126	—

Knowledge Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 29.1 (#232), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Mistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Expert	1090	—

Multilingual Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 26.4 (#276), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Mistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Non-English	1019	—
LMArena Chinese	1017	—
LMArena German	1056	—
LMArena Russian	949	—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 56.3 (#270), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Mistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Instruction Following	1089	—

Long Context Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#256), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Mistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Longer Query	1101	—

Writing & Preference Mistral Medium 3.1 leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 24.9 (#302), Mistral Medium 3.1: 55.6 (#140)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Mistral Medium 3.1
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	595	1476
LMArena Text	1110	—
LMArena Creative Writing	1094	—
LMArena Multi-Turn	1105	—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.2 3B better than Mistral Medium 3.1?

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 3B or Mistral Medium 3.1?

Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.33 per million output tokens; Mistral Medium 3.1 lists at $0.40 and $2.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 131K tokens.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 3B and Mistral Medium 3.1 share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Llama 3.2 3B has 18 scored results on Noometry and Mistral Medium 3.1 has 3.