Model comparison

Llama 3.2 3B vs Qwen3 32B

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 28.4 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 10× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 14 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.2 3B

Summary

They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 3B scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3 32B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3 32B leads 53.1 to 24.9.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard: 21.9% for Llama 3.2 3B and 48.7% for Qwen3 32B.
Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.33 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 32B.

Side by side

Llama 3.2 3B and Qwen3 32B specifications
	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3 32B
Provider	Meta	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	28.4	38.8
Released	2024-09-24	2025-04
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	131K	131K
Max output	118K	16K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.05	$0.70
Output $ / M tokens	$0.33	$2.80
Results tracked	18	26

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3 32B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 27.1 (#314), Qwen3 32B: 37.3 (#184)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3 32B
LMArena Coding	1098	1358
Aider Polyglot	—	40%
SciCode	—	35.4%
BigCodeBench Instruct	23.4%	—
BigCodeBench Complete	28.3%	—

Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3 32B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 19.9 (#135), Qwen3 32B: 32.3 (#58)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3 32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	21.9%	48.7%
BALROG	10.1%	—

Reasoning Too close to call

Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#225), Qwen3 32B: 19.6 (#233)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3 32B
LMArena Hard Prompts	1095	1335
Kagi LLM Benchmark	—	54.9%
CritPt	—	0.3%
Chess Puzzles	—	5%
DTBench	—	67.5%
LMCA	—	17.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index	—	138.51

Math Qwen3 32B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 29.9 (#213), Qwen3 32B: 37.9 (#89)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3 32B
LMArena Math	1126	1399
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	—	66.9%

Knowledge Qwen3 32B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 29.1 (#232), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#112)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3 32B
LMArena Expert	1090	1362
GPQA Diamond	—	65.7%
Vectara Hallucination Rate	—	5.9%

Multilingual Qwen3 32B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 26.4 (#276), Qwen3 32B: 45.8 (#162)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English	1019	1317
LMArena Chinese	1017	1357
LMArena German	1056	1341
LMArena Russian	949	1311

Instruction Following Qwen3 32B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 56.3 (#270), Qwen3 32B: 69.1 (#174)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following	1089	1305

Long Context Qwen3 32B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#256), Qwen3 32B: 43.7 (#83)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3 32B
LMArena Longer Query	1101	1327
Fiction.LiveBench	—	74.2%

Writing & Preference Qwen3 32B leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 24.9 (#302), Qwen3 32B: 53.1 (#158)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3 32B
LMArena Text	1110	1340
LMArena Creative Writing	1094	1297
LMArena Multi-Turn	1105	1331
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	595	—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.2 3B better than Qwen3 32B?

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 3B or Qwen3 32B?

Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.33 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

Is Llama 3.2 3B or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

Qwen3 32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.3 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 32B share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 3B has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.