Model comparison

Llama 3.2 3B vs Qwen2.5 14B Instruct

Llama 3.2 3B has enough public results to be ranked (#318); Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 2 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.2 3B

Summary

They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 3B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct in 1 category; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen2.5 14B Instruct leads 37.1 to 27.1.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Complete: 28.3% for Llama 3.2 3B and 52.2% for Qwen2.5 14B Instruct.
Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.33 per million input/output tokens, against $0.35 / $1.40 for Qwen2.5 14B Instruct.

Side by side

Llama 3.2 3B and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct specifications
	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
Provider	Meta	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	28.4	38.2
Released	2024-09-24	2024-09
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	131K	131K
Max output	118K	8K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.05	$0.35
Output $ / M tokens	$0.33	$1.40
Results tracked	18	3

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen2.5 14B Instruct leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 27.1 (#314), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: 37.1 (#187)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
BigCodeBench Instruct	23.4%	39.8%
BigCodeBench Complete	28.3%	52.2%
LMArena Coding	1098	—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 19.9 (#135), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	21.9%	—
BALROG	10.1%	—

Reasoning Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#225), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Hard Prompts	1095	—

Math Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 29.9 (#213), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Math	1126	—

Knowledge Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 29.1 (#232), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Expert	1090	—
MMLU	—	79.9%

Multilingual Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 26.4 (#276), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Non-English	1019	—
LMArena Chinese	1017	—
LMArena German	1056	—
LMArena Russian	949	—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 56.3 (#270), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Instruction Following	1089	—

Long Context Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#256), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query	1101	—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 24.9 (#302), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Text	1110	—
LMArena Creative Writing	1094	—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	595	—
LMArena Multi-Turn	1105	—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.2 3B better than Qwen2.5 14B Instruct?

Llama 3.2 3B has enough public results to be ranked (#318); Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 3B or Qwen2.5 14B Instruct?

Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.33 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 14B Instruct lists at $0.35 and $1.40.

Is Llama 3.2 3B or Qwen2.5 14B Instruct better for coding?

Qwen2.5 14B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.1 versus 27.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 131K tokens.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 3B and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 3B has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct has 3.