Model comparison

Llama 3.2 3B vs Qwen2-72B

Qwen2-72B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.5 to 28.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.2 3B Meta

28.4

Rank #318 Confirmed

Qwen2-72B Alibaba (Qwen)

29.5

Rank #294 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 3B scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen2-72B in 6 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen2-72B leads 41.0 to 24.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Complete: 28.3% for Llama 3.2 3B and 54% for Qwen2-72B.

Side by side

Llama 3.2 3B and Qwen2-72B specifications
Llama 3.2 3BQwen2-72B
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index28.429.5
Released2024-09-242024-06-07
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window131K—
Max output118K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.05—
Output $ / M tokens$0.33—
Results tracked1826

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen2-72B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 27.1 (#314), Qwen2-72B: 28.7 (#303)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen2-72B
BigCodeBench Instruct23.4%38.5%
LMArena Coding10981196
BigCodeBench Complete28.3%54%
WeirdML—11.3%

Agentic & Tool Use Llama 3.2 3B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 19.9 (#135), Qwen2-72B: 16.9 (#138)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen2-72B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard21.9%—
TheAgentCompany—1.1%
BALROG10.1%—
METR Time Horizons—29.9%

Reasoning Qwen2-72B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#225), Qwen2-72B: 22.2 (#184)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen2-72B
LMArena Hard Prompts10951191
Epoch Capabilities Index—125.27

Math Llama 3.2 3B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 29.9 (#213), Qwen2-72B: 27.9 (#232)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen2-72B
LMArena Math11261235
MATH Level 5—39.1%

Knowledge Llama 3.2 3B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 29.1 (#232), Qwen2-72B: 21.2 (#270)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen2-72B
LMArena Expert10901171
GPQA Diamond—40.8%
MMLU—82.4%

Multilingual Qwen2-72B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 26.4 (#276), Qwen2-72B: 36.0 (#239)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen2-72B
LMArena Non-English10191176
LMArena Chinese10171240
LMArena German10561151
LMArena Russian9491169
LMArena French—1169
LMArena Japanese—1111
LMArena Korean—1083
LMArena Spanish—1168

Instruction Following Qwen2-72B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 56.3 (#270), Qwen2-72B: 62.0 (#236)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen2-72B
LMArena Instruction Following10891181

Long Context Qwen2-72B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#256), Qwen2-72B: 36.1 (#230)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen2-72B
LMArena Longer Query11011193

Writing & Preference Qwen2-72B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 24.9 (#302), Qwen2-72B: 41.0 (#236)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen2-72B
LMArena Text11101203
LMArena Creative Writing10941181
LMArena Multi-Turn11051195
EQ-Bench Creative Writing595—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.2 3B better than Qwen2-72B?

Qwen2-72B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.5 to 28.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Llama 3.2 3B or Qwen2-72B better for coding?

Qwen2-72B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 28.7 versus 27.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 3B and Qwen2-72B share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 3B has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2-72B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper