Model comparison
Llama 3.2 3B vs Wizardlm 70b
Wizardlm 70b is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.0 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.
Meta
MicrosoftSummary
- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 3B scores higher in 3 categories and Wizardlm 70b in 4 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Wizardlm 70b leads 34.8 to 24.7.
Side by side
| Llama 3.2 3B | Wizardlm 70b | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Microsoft |
| Noometry Index | 28.9 | 33.0 |
| Released | 2024-09-24 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 131K | — |
| Max output | 118K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.05 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.33 | — |
| Results tracked | 18 | 12 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Wizardlm 70b leads
Llama 3.2 3B: 27.6 (#319), Wizardlm 70b: 31.4 (#285)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Wizardlm 70b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1098 | 1081 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 23.4% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 28.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#143), Wizardlm 70b: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Wizardlm 70b |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 21.9% | — |
| BALROG | 10.1% | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
Llama 3.2 3B: 21.0 (#228), Wizardlm 70b: 20.7 (#234)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Wizardlm 70b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1095 | 1079 |
Math Too close to call
Llama 3.2 3B: 32.4 (#214), Wizardlm 70b: 32.2 (#218)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Wizardlm 70b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1126 | 1116 |
Knowledge Not comparable
Llama 3.2 3B: 29.7 (#235), Wizardlm 70b: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Wizardlm 70b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1090 | — |
Multilingual Wizardlm 70b leads
Llama 3.2 3B: 26.2 (#281), Wizardlm 70b: 29.6 (#265)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Wizardlm 70b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1019 | 1078 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1017 | 1052 |
| LMArena German | 1056 | 1083 |
| LMArena Russian | 949 | 1155 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Llama 3.2 3B: 56.0 (#275), Wizardlm 70b: 56.3 (#273)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Wizardlm 70b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1089 | 1093 |
Long Context Too close to call
Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#261), Wizardlm 70b: 33.3 (#263)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Wizardlm 70b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1100 | 1097 |
Writing & Preference Wizardlm 70b leads
Llama 3.2 3B: 24.7 (#307), Wizardlm 70b: 34.8 (#269)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Wizardlm 70b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1110 | 1120 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1094 | 1149 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1105 | 1108 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 595 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.2 3B better than Wizardlm 70b?
Wizardlm 70b is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.0 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Llama 3.2 3B or Wizardlm 70b better for coding?
Wizardlm 70b scores higher on coding benchmarks: 31.4 versus 27.6 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 3B and Wizardlm 70b share?
12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 3B has 18 scored results on Noometry and Wizardlm 70b has 12.