Model comparison

Llama 3.2 3B vs Qwen3 14B

Qwen3 14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.0 to 28.4 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 5.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 14B'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 Qwen3 14B in 5 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3 14B leads 39.2 to 29.1.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard: 21.9% for Llama 3.2 3B and 41% for Qwen3 14B.
Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.33 per million input/output tokens, against $0.35 / $1.40 for Qwen3 14B.

Side by side

Llama 3.2 3B and Qwen3 14B specifications
	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3 14B
Provider	Meta	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	28.4	35.0
Released	2024-09-24	2025-04
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	12

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3 14B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 27.1 (#314), Qwen3 14B: 36.7 (#191)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3 14B
SciCode	—	31.6%
BigCodeBench Instruct	23.4%	—
LMArena Coding	1098	—
BigCodeBench Complete	28.3%	—

Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3 14B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 19.9 (#135), Qwen3 14B: 29.4 (#78)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3 14B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	21.9%	41%
BALROG	10.1%	—

Reasoning Llama 3.2 3B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#225), Qwen3 14B: 18.1 (#272)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3 14B
Kagi LLM Benchmark	—	49.1%
CritPt	—	0%
Chess Puzzles	—	4%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1095	—
DTBench	—	64%
LMCA	—	18.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index	—	138.23

Math Qwen3 14B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 29.9 (#213), Qwen3 14B: 37.0 (#102)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3 14B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	—	66.4%
LMArena Math	1126	—

Knowledge Qwen3 14B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 29.1 (#232), Qwen3 14B: 39.2 (#124)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3 14B
GPQA Diamond	—	63.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate	—	5.4%
LMArena Expert	1090	—

Multilingual Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 26.4 (#276), Qwen3 14B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3 14B
LMArena Non-English	1019	—
LMArena Chinese	1017	—
LMArena German	1056	—
LMArena Russian	949	—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 56.3 (#270), Qwen3 14B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3 14B
LMArena Instruction Following	1089	—

Long Context Qwen3 14B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#256), Qwen3 14B: 38.0 (#201)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3 14B
Fiction.LiveBench	—	62.5%
LMArena Longer Query	1101	—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 24.9 (#302), Qwen3 14B: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3 14B
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 Qwen3 14B?

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 3B or Qwen3 14B?

Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.33 per million output tokens; Qwen3 14B lists at $0.35 and $1.40.

Is Llama 3.2 3B or Qwen3 14B better for coding?

Qwen3 14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 36.7 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 Qwen3 14B share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Llama 3.2 3B has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.