# Llama 3.2 3B vs MiniMax-M2

> MiniMax-M2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.4 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 4.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiniMax-M2's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/llama-3-2-3b-vs-minimax-m2
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 13

## Summary

- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 3B scores higher in 1 category and MiniMax-M2 in 8 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiniMax-M2 leads 53.0 to 24.7.
- Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.33 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $1.20 for MiniMax-M2.
- MiniMax-M2 accepts more context: 205K tokens versus 131K.

## Snapshot

| | Llama 3.2 3B | MiniMax-M2 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | MiniMax |
| Noometry Index | 28.9 | 37.4 |
| Rank | 321 | 204 |
| Context | 131K | 205K |
| Input $/M | $0.05 | $0.30 |
| Output $/M | $0.33 | $1.20 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Llama 3.2 3B: 27.6 (#319)
- MiniMax-M2: 39.3 (#159)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | MiniMax-M2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1098 | 1370 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 61% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1297 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 23.4% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 28.3% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#143)
- MiniMax-M2: 25.1 (#109)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | MiniMax-M2 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 30% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 21.9% | — |
| BALROG | 10.1% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 160.6 |

## Reasoning

- Llama 3.2 3B: 21.0 (#228)
- MiniMax-M2: 19.4 (#258)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | MiniMax-M2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1095 | 1357 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 57.8% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 14.8% |

## Math

- Llama 3.2 3B: 32.4 (#214)
- MiniMax-M2: 37.3 (#160)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | MiniMax-M2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1126 | 1352 |

## Knowledge

- Llama 3.2 3B: 29.7 (#235)
- MiniMax-M2: 37.0 (#163)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | MiniMax-M2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1090 | 1337 |

## Multilingual

- Llama 3.2 3B: 26.2 (#281)
- MiniMax-M2: 45.3 (#171)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | MiniMax-M2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1019 | 1313 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1017 | 1366 |
| LMArena German | 1056 | 1355 |
| LMArena Russian | 949 | 1331 |
| LMArena French | — | 1335 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1326 |

## Instruction Following

- Llama 3.2 3B: 56.0 (#275)
- MiniMax-M2: 70.2 (#166)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | MiniMax-M2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1089 | 1328 |

## Long Context

- Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#261)
- MiniMax-M2: 40.5 (#153)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | MiniMax-M2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1100 | 1331 |

## Writing & Preference

- Llama 3.2 3B: 24.7 (#307)
- MiniMax-M2: 53.0 (#162)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | MiniMax-M2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1110 | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1094 | 1286 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1105 | 1361 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 595 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Llama 3.2 3B better than MiniMax-M2?

MiniMax-M2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.4 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 4.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiniMax-M2's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 3B or MiniMax-M2?

Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.33 per million output tokens; MiniMax-M2 lists at $0.30 and $1.20.

### Is Llama 3.2 3B or MiniMax-M2 better for coding?

MiniMax-M2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.3 versus 27.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

MiniMax-M2 does, with 205K tokens against 131K.

### How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 3B and MiniMax-M2 share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 3B has 18 scored results on Noometry and MiniMax-M2 has 21.