# Llama 3.2 3B vs Qwen1.5-72B

> Qwen1.5-72B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.8 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/llama-3-2-3b-vs-qwen1-5-72b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 15

## Summary

- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 3B scores higher in 1 category and Qwen1.5-72B in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Llama 3.2 3B leads 29.7 to 11.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Complete: 28.3% for Llama 3.2 3B and 40.3% for Qwen1.5-72B.

## Snapshot

| | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 28.9 | 30.8 |
| Rank | 321 | 285 |
| Context | 131K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.05 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.33 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Llama 3.2 3B: 27.6 (#319)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 23.4% | 33.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1098 | 1165 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 28.3% | 40.3% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 59.1% |
| MBPP+ | — | 61.6% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#143)
- Qwen1.5-72B: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 21.9% | — |
| BALROG | 10.1% | — |

## Reasoning

- Llama 3.2 3B: 21.0 (#228)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1095 | 1148 |

## Math

- Llama 3.2 3B: 32.4 (#214)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1126 | 1164 |

## Knowledge

- Llama 3.2 3B: 29.7 (#235)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1090 | 1136 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 28.8% |

## Multilingual

- Llama 3.2 3B: 26.2 (#281)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1019 | 1135 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1017 | 1186 |
| LMArena German | 1056 | 1084 |
| LMArena Russian | 949 | 1104 |
| LMArena French | — | 1159 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1061 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1050 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1110 |

## Instruction Following

- Llama 3.2 3B: 56.0 (#275)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1089 | 1141 |

## Long Context

- Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#261)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1100 | 1157 |

## Writing & Preference

- Llama 3.2 3B: 24.7 (#307)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1110 | 1166 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1094 | 1137 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1105 | 1160 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 595 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Llama 3.2 3B better than Qwen1.5-72B?

Qwen1.5-72B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.8 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Llama 3.2 3B or Qwen1.5-72B better for coding?

Qwen1.5-72B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 31.9 versus 27.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 3B and Qwen1.5-72B share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 3B has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.