Model comparison

Llama 3.2 3B vs Sonar

Sonar is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.8 to 28.4 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 8.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Sonar'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 writing & preference, where Sonar leads 52.6 to 24.9.
Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.33 per million input/output tokens, against $1 / $1 for Sonar.
Llama 3.2 3B accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.
Llama 3.2 3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Llama 3.2 3B and Sonar specifications
	Llama 3.2 3B	Sonar
Provider	Meta	Perplexity
Noometry Index	28.4	37.8
Released	2024-09-24	2024-01-01
Weights	Open	Proprietary
Context window	131K	128K
Max output	118K	4K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.05	$1
Output $ / M tokens	$0.33	$1
Results tracked	18	7

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

Category by category

Coding Sonar leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 27.1 (#314), Sonar: 35.1 (#217)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Sonar
BigCodeBench Instruct	23.4%	—
LiveBench Coding	—	35.1%
LMArena Coding	1098	—
BigCodeBench Complete	28.3%	—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 19.9 (#135), Sonar: —

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

Reasoning Too close to call

Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#225), Sonar: 20.3 (#221)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Sonar
LiveBench Reasoning	—	46.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1095	—
LiveBench Data Analysis	—	37.9%
LiveBench	—	46.9%

Math Sonar leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 29.9 (#213), Sonar: 31.3 (#197)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Sonar
LiveBench Math	—	41.6%
LMArena Math	1126	—

Knowledge Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 29.1 (#232), Sonar: —

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Sonar
LMArena Expert	1090	—

Multilingual Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 26.4 (#276), Sonar: —

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

Instruction Following Sonar leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 56.3 (#270), Sonar: 71.5 (#146)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Sonar
LiveBench Instruction Following	—	76.2%
LMArena Instruction Following	1089	—

Long Context Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#256), Sonar: —

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Sonar
LMArena Longer Query	1101	—

Writing & Preference Sonar leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 24.9 (#302), Sonar: 52.6 (#166)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	Sonar
LMArena Text	1110	—
LMArena Creative Writing	1094	—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	595	—
LMArena Multi-Turn	1105	—
LiveBench Language	—	44.1%

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.2 3B better than Sonar?

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 3B or Sonar?

Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.33 per million output tokens; Sonar lists at $1 and $1.

Is Llama 3.2 3B or Sonar better for coding?

Sonar scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.1 versus 27.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Llama 3.2 3B does, with 131K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 3B and Sonar share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 3B has 18 scored results on Noometry and Sonar has 7.