# Llama 3.2 3B vs Sonar

> Sonar is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.8 to 28.4 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 8.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Sonar's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

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

## Summary

- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Sonar leads 52.6 to 24.9.
- Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.33 per million input/output tokens, against $1 / $1 for Sonar.
- Llama 3.2 3B accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.
- Llama 3.2 3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Llama 3.2 3B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Perplexity |
| Noometry Index | 28.4 | 37.8 |
| Rank | 318 | 184 |
| Context | 131K | 128K |
| Input $/M | $0.05 | $1 |
| Output $/M | $0.33 | $1 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Llama 3.2 3B: 27.1 (#314)
- Sonar: 35.1 (#217)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 23.4% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 35.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1098 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 28.3% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Llama 3.2 3B: 19.9 (#135)
- Sonar: —

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

## Reasoning

- Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#225)
- Sonar: 20.3 (#221)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 46.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1095 | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 37.9% |
| LiveBench | — | 46.9% |

## Math

- Llama 3.2 3B: 29.9 (#213)
- Sonar: 31.3 (#197)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | — | 41.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1126 | — |

## Knowledge

- Llama 3.2 3B: 29.1 (#232)
- Sonar: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1090 | — |

## Multilingual

- Llama 3.2 3B: 26.4 (#276)
- Sonar: —

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

## Instruction Following

- Llama 3.2 3B: 56.3 (#270)
- Sonar: 71.5 (#146)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 76.2% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1089 | — |

## Long Context

- Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#256)
- Sonar: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1101 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Llama 3.2 3B: 24.9 (#302)
- Sonar: 52.6 (#166)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 3B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1110 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1094 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 595 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1105 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 44.1% |

## FAQ

### Is Llama 3.2 3B better than Sonar?

Sonar is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.8 to 28.4 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 8.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Sonar's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 3B or Sonar?

Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.33 per million output tokens; Sonar lists at $1 and $1.

### Is Llama 3.2 3B or Sonar better for coding?

Sonar scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.1 versus 27.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Llama 3.2 3B does, with 131K tokens against 128K.

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

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 3B has 18 scored results on Noometry and Sonar has 7.