Model comparison

Llama 3.2 3B vs Qwen3 Coder Next

Qwen3 Coder Next is the stronger model overall, scoring 34.3 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 2.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 Coder Next's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 11, 2026. 0 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.2 3B

Summary

The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen3 Coder Next leads 36.3 to 27.6.
Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.33 per million input/output tokens, against $0.12 / $0.80 for Qwen3 Coder Next.
Qwen3 Coder Next accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

Llama 3.2 3B and Qwen3 Coder Next specifications
	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3 Coder Next
Provider	Meta	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	28.9	34.3
Released	2024-09-24	2026-02-02
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	131K	262K
Max output	118K	66K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.05	$0.12
Output $ / M tokens	$0.33	$0.80
Results tracked	18	3

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3 Coder Next leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 27.6 (#319), Qwen3 Coder Next: 36.3 (#210)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3 Coder Next
SciCode	—	32.3%
WeirdML	—	34.4%
BigCodeBench Instruct	23.4%	—
LMArena Coding	1098	—
BigCodeBench Complete	28.3%	—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#143), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

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

Reasoning Qwen3 Coder Next leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 21.0 (#228), Qwen3 Coder Next: 22.4 (#196)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3 Coder Next
CritPt	—	0%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1095	—

Math Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 32.4 (#214), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Math	1126	—

Knowledge Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 29.7 (#235), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Expert	1090	—

Multilingual Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 26.2 (#281), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

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

Instruction Following Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 56.0 (#275), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

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

Long Context Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#261), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3 Coder Next
LMArena Longer Query	1100	—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 24.7 (#307), Qwen3 Coder Next: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Qwen3 Coder Next
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 Coder Next?

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 3B or Qwen3 Coder Next?

Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.33 per million output tokens; Qwen3 Coder Next lists at $0.12 and $0.80.

Is Llama 3.2 3B or Qwen3 Coder Next better for coding?

Qwen3 Coder Next scores higher on coding benchmarks: 36.3 versus 27.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3 Coder Next does, with 262K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 3B and Qwen3 Coder Next share?

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