# Llama 3.2 3B vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

> Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.9 to 28.4 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 6.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen2.5-Coder-32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/llama-3-2-3b-vs-qwen2-5-coder-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 14

## Summary

- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 3B scores higher in 1 category and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 7 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads 41.8 to 24.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Complete: 28.3% for Llama 3.2 3B and 58% for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B.
- Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.33 per million input/output tokens, against $0.66 / $1 for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B.
- Llama 3.2 3B accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 33K.

## Snapshot

| | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 28.4 | 32.9 |
| Rank | 318 | 239 |
| Context | 131K | 33K |
| Input $/M | $0.05 | $0.66 |
| Output $/M | $0.33 | $1 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Llama 3.2 3B: 27.1 (#314)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.4 (#328)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 23.4% | 49% |
| LMArena Coding | 1098 | 1276 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 28.3% | 58% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 16.4% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 56.9% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 87.2% |
| MBPP+ | — | 77% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Llama 3.2 3B: 19.9 (#135)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 21.9% | — |
| BALROG | 10.1% | — |

## Reasoning

- Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#225)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 20.4 (#220)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1095 | 1251 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 42.1% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 49.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 119.41 |
| HellaSwag | — | 83% |
| LiveBench | — | 46.2% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.8% |

## Math

- Llama 3.2 3B: 29.9 (#213)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 30.8 (#203)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1126 | 1251 |
| LiveBench Math | — | 46.6% |
| GSM8K | — | 93% |

## Knowledge

- Llama 3.2 3B: 29.1 (#232)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 32.9 (#200)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1090 | 1221 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 70.5% |
| MMLU | — | 79.1% |

## Multilingual

- Llama 3.2 3B: 26.4 (#276)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#230)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1019 | 1205 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1017 | 1222 |
| LMArena Russian | 949 | 1228 |
| LMArena German | 1056 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Llama 3.2 3B: 56.3 (#270)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.6 (#240)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1089 | 1223 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.7% |

## Long Context

- Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#256)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.9 (#204)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1101 | 1251 |

## Writing & Preference

- Llama 3.2 3B: 24.9 (#302)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.8 (#235)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1110 | 1230 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1094 | 1174 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1105 | 1222 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 595 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 23.3% |

## FAQ

### Is Llama 3.2 3B better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.9 to 28.4 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 6.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen2.5-Coder-32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 3B or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.33 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5-Coder-32B lists at $0.66 and $1.

### Is Llama 3.2 3B or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

Llama 3.2 3B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 27.1 versus 22.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Llama 3.2 3B does, with 131K tokens against 33K.

### How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 3B and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 3B has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.