Noometry

Model comparison

Llama 3.2 3B vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 28.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.2 3B Meta

28.4

Rank #318 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.3

Rank #105 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 3B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 58.2 to 24.9.
  • Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.33 per million input/output tokens, against $0.10 / $0.40 for Qwen3.5-Flash.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
  • Llama 3.2 3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Llama 3.2 3BQwen3.5-Flash
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index28.442.3
Released2024-09-242026-02-23
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window131K1M
Max output118K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.05$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$0.33$0.40
Results tracked1832

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 27.1 (#314), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.9 (#234)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Coding10981412
LMArena WebDev—1243
BigCodeBench Instruct23.4%—
BigCodeBench Complete28.3%—
ALE-Bench—221.8

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 19.9 (#135), Qwen3.5-Flash: —

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen3.5-Flash
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard21.9%—
BALROG10.1%—
Vending-Bench 2—462.69

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#225), Qwen3.5-Flash: 32.9 (#63)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts10951404
Chess Puzzles—21%
Mystery Game Puzzles—20%
DTBench—82.9%
LMCA—29.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.98

Math Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 29.9 (#213), Qwen3.5-Flash: 36.3 (#117)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Math11261407
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—18.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—84.4%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—6.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 29.1 (#232), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#84)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Expert10901408
GPQA Diamond—82.3%
SimpleQA Verified—20.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%

Multilingual Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 26.4 (#276), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.7 (#116)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English10191385
LMArena Chinese10171446
LMArena German10561389
LMArena Russian9491379
LMArena French—1412
LMArena Japanese—1369
LMArena Korean—1344
LMArena Spanish—1399

Instruction Following Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 56.3 (#270), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.8 (#133)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following10891374

Long Context Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#256), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#119)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query11011392

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 24.9 (#302), Qwen3.5-Flash: 58.2 (#117)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text11101397
LMArena Creative Writing10941343
LMArena Multi-Turn11051393
EQ-Bench Creative Writing595—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.2 3B better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 28.4 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 3B or Qwen3.5-Flash?

Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.33 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5-Flash lists at $0.10 and $0.40.

Is Llama 3.2 3B or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

Qwen3.5-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.9 versus 27.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 3B and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 3B has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper