# Llama 3.2 3B vs Qwen3 Coder Next

> Qwen3 Coder Next is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.8 to 28.4 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 2.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 Coder Next's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/llama-3-2-3b-vs-qwen3-coder-next
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen3 Coder Next leads 35.8 to 27.1.
- Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.33 per million input/output tokens, against $0.12 / $0.80 for Qwen3 Coder Next.
- Qwen3 Coder Next accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 131K.

## Snapshot

| | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 28.4 | 33.8 |
| Rank | 318 | 229 |
| Context | 131K | 262K |
| Input $/M | $0.05 | $0.12 |
| Output $/M | $0.33 | $0.80 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Llama 3.2 3B: 27.1 (#314)
- Qwen3 Coder Next: 35.8 (#206)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 32.3% |
| WeirdML | — | 34.4% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 23.4% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1098 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 28.3% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Llama 3.2 3B: 19.9 (#135)
- Qwen3 Coder Next: —

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

## Reasoning

- Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#225)
- Qwen3 Coder Next: 21.7 (#191)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1095 | — |

## Math

- Llama 3.2 3B: 29.9 (#213)
- Qwen3 Coder Next: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1126 | — |

## Knowledge

- Llama 3.2 3B: 29.1 (#232)
- Qwen3 Coder Next: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1090 | — |

## Multilingual

- Llama 3.2 3B: 26.4 (#276)
- Qwen3 Coder Next: —

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

## Instruction Following

- Llama 3.2 3B: 56.3 (#270)
- Qwen3 Coder Next: —

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

## Long Context

- Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#256)
- Qwen3 Coder Next: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1101 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Llama 3.2 3B: 24.9 (#302)
- Qwen3 Coder Next: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Qwen3 Coder Next |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Coder Next?

Qwen3 Coder Next is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.8 to 28.4 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 2.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 Coder Next's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

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

Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.33 per million output tokens; Qwen3 Coder Next lists at $0.12 and $0.80.

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

Qwen3 Coder Next scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.8 versus 27.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3 Coder Next does, with 262K tokens against 131K.

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

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 3B has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 Coder Next has 3.