# GPT-5.2 Codex vs Llama 3.2 3B

> GPT-5.2 Codex is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 28.4 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 40× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.2 Codex's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gpt-5-2-codex-vs-llama-3-2-3b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where GPT-5.2 Codex leads 40.7 to 19.9.
- Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.33 per million input/output tokens, against $1.75 / $14 for GPT-5.2 Codex.
- GPT-5.2 Codex accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 131K.
- Llama 3.2 3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GPT-5.2 Codex | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 42.2 | 28.4 |
| Rank | 107 | 318 |
| Context | 400K | 131K |
| Input $/M | $1.75 | $0.05 |
| Output $/M | $14 | $0.33 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- GPT-5.2 Codex: 45.4 (#66)
- Llama 3.2 3B: 27.1 (#314)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Codex | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 72.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1339 | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 66.3% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 23.4% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1098 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 28.3% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,300 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GPT-5.2 Codex: 40.7 (#20)
- Llama 3.2 3B: 19.9 (#135)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Codex | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 66.5% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 21.9% |
| BALROG | — | 10.1% |

## Reasoning

- GPT-5.2 Codex: —
- Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#225)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Codex | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1095 |

## Math

- GPT-5.2 Codex: —
- Llama 3.2 3B: 29.9 (#213)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Codex | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1126 |

## Knowledge

- GPT-5.2 Codex: —
- Llama 3.2 3B: 29.1 (#232)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Codex | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1090 |

## Multilingual

- GPT-5.2 Codex: —
- Llama 3.2 3B: 26.4 (#276)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Codex | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1019 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1017 |
| LMArena German | — | 1056 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 949 |

## Instruction Following

- GPT-5.2 Codex: —
- Llama 3.2 3B: 56.3 (#270)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Codex | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1089 |

## Long Context

- GPT-5.2 Codex: —
- Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#256)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Codex | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1101 |

## Writing & Preference

- GPT-5.2 Codex: —
- Llama 3.2 3B: 24.9 (#302)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Codex | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1110 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1094 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 595 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1105 |

## FAQ

### Is GPT-5.2 Codex better than Llama 3.2 3B?

GPT-5.2 Codex is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 28.4 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 40× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.2 Codex's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, GPT-5.2 Codex or Llama 3.2 3B?

Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.33 per million output tokens; GPT-5.2 Codex lists at $1.75 and $14.

### Is GPT-5.2 Codex or Llama 3.2 3B better for coding?

GPT-5.2 Codex scores higher on coding benchmarks: 45.4 versus 27.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-5.2 Codex does, with 400K tokens against 131K.

### How many benchmarks do GPT-5.2 Codex and Llama 3.2 3B share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.2 Codex has 5 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 3B has 18.