# Llama 3.2 3B vs Qwen3 14B

> Qwen3 14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.5 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 5.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 14B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/llama-3-2-3b-vs-qwen3-14b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 1

## Summary

- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Llama 3.2 3B scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3 14B in 5 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen3 14B leads 37.3 to 27.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard: 21.9% for Llama 3.2 3B and 41% for Qwen3 14B.
- Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.33 per million input/output tokens, against $0.35 / $1.40 for Qwen3 14B.

## Snapshot

| | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 28.9 | 35.5 |
| Rank | 321 | 225 |
| Context | 131K | 131K |
| Input $/M | $0.05 | $0.35 |
| Output $/M | $0.33 | $1.40 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Llama 3.2 3B: 27.6 (#319)
- Qwen3 14B: 37.3 (#195)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 31.6% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 23.4% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1098 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 28.3% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#143)
- Qwen3 14B: 29.6 (#83)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 21.9% | 41% |
| BALROG | 10.1% | — |

## Reasoning

- Llama 3.2 3B: 21.0 (#228)
- Qwen3 14B: 18.5 (#280)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 49.1% |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1095 | — |
| DTBench | — | 64% |
| LMCA | — | 18.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 138.23 |

## Math

- Llama 3.2 3B: 32.4 (#214)
- Qwen3 14B: 38.6 (#133)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1126 | — |

## Knowledge

- Llama 3.2 3B: 29.7 (#235)
- Qwen3 14B: 39.3 (#134)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 63.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1090 | — |

## Multilingual

- Llama 3.2 3B: 26.2 (#281)
- Qwen3 14B: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1019 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1017 | — |
| LMArena German | 1056 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 949 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Llama 3.2 3B: 56.0 (#275)
- Qwen3 14B: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1089 | — |

## Long Context

- Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#261)
- Qwen3 14B: 38.1 (#204)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 62.5% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1100 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Llama 3.2 3B: 24.7 (#307)
- Qwen3 14B: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1110 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1094 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 595 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1105 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Llama 3.2 3B better than Qwen3 14B?

Qwen3 14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.5 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 5.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 14B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 3B or Qwen3 14B?

Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.33 per million output tokens; Qwen3 14B lists at $0.35 and $1.40.

### Is Llama 3.2 3B or Qwen3 14B better for coding?

Qwen3 14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.3 versus 27.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 131K tokens.

### How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 3B and Qwen3 14B share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Llama 3.2 3B has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.