Model comparison

Llama 3.2 3B vs Qwen3.6 Flash

Qwen3.6 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 28.4 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 3.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 0 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.2 3B

Summary

The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Flash leads 42.2 to 29.1.
Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.33 per million input/output tokens, against $0.19 / $1.13 for Qwen3.6 Flash.
Qwen3.6 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 3B and Qwen3.6 Flash specifications
	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3.6 Flash
Provider	Meta	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	28.4	38.4
Released	2024-09-24	2026-04-27
Weights	Open	Proprietary
Context window	131K	1M
Max output	118K	66K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.05	$0.19
Output $ / M tokens	$0.33	$1.13
Results tracked	18	13

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 27.1 (#314), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3.6 Flash
BigCodeBench Instruct	23.4%	—
LMArena Coding	1098	—
BigCodeBench Complete	28.3%	—
ALE-Bench	—	326.4

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 19.9 (#135), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3.6 Flash
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	21.9%	—
BALROG	10.1%	—

Reasoning Qwen3.6 Flash leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#225), Qwen3.6 Flash: 28.4 (#90)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3.6 Flash
SimpleBench	—	35.2%
Chess Puzzles	—	20%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1095	—
Mystery Game Puzzles	—	18%
DTBench	—	77.1%
LMCA	—	31%
Epoch Capabilities Index	—	143.26

Math Qwen3.6 Flash leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 29.9 (#213), Qwen3.6 Flash: 38.0 (#88)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3.6 Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)	—	22.5%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	—	84.4%
LMArena Math	1126	—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)	—	10.3%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)	—	0%

Knowledge Qwen3.6 Flash leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 29.1 (#232), Qwen3.6 Flash: 42.2 (#90)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3.6 Flash
GPQA Diamond	—	83.3%
SimpleQA Verified	—	15.9%
LMArena Expert	1090	—

Multilingual Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 26.4 (#276), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Non-English	1019	—
LMArena Chinese	1017	—
LMArena German	1056	—
LMArena Russian	949	—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 56.3 (#270), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following	1089	—

Long Context Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#256), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Longer Query	1101	—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 24.9 (#302), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3.6 Flash
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 Qwen3.6 Flash?

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 3B or Qwen3.6 Flash?

Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.33 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Flash lists at $0.19 and $1.13.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 3B and Qwen3.6 Flash share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 3B has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Flash has 13.