Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-3.5 Turbo vs Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct leads GPT-3.5 Turbo on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 5.7 to 5.5, and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct costs 4.5x less per output token ($0.3325 vs $1.50 per million). Updated October 23, 2026; 3 benchmarks have a result for both.

GPT-3.5 TurboOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.50
2
Llama 3.2 3B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.3325
1
vs boards won of 3 shared

GPT-3.5 Turbo or Llama 3.2 3B Instruct: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick GPT-3.5 Turbo for work measured by AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Shared results
3
GPT-3.5 Turbo only
10
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct only
32
Like-for-like categories
3 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
GPT-3.5 Turbo not benchmarked, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
Knowledge, 11.5 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run): GPT-3.5 Turbo 46.2% against Llama 3.2 3B Instruct 34.7%, 11.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-3.5 Turbo $1.50 against Llama 3.2 3B Instruct $0.3325 per million output tokens, 4.5x apart.
Context window
GPT-3.5 Turbo takes 16K tokens, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct 131K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGPT-3.5 TurboBarsLlama 3.2 3B InstructTies
Intelligence01
Reasoning10
Knowledge10
All shared boards21
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index5 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-3.5 TurboLlama 3.2 3B InstructLeader
AA Coding Index10.7Not measuredOnly GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured8.3%Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1097Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1103Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
SciCode0.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-3.5 TurboLlama 3.2 3B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index5.55.7Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-3.5 TurboLlama 3.2 3B InstructLeader
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured21.1%Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
BALROGNot measured10.1%Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)Not measured21.9%Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-3.5 TurboLlama 3.2 3B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond30.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)29.7%25.5%GPT-3.5 Turbo
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured5.3%Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
BIG-Bench Hard61.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1094Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1090Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1141Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-3.5 TurboLlama 3.2 3B InstructLeader
AA Math IndexNot measured3.3Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured3.3%Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
GSM8K57.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1126Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1128Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-3.5 TurboLlama 3.2 3B InstructLeader
LegalBench (Vals AI)64.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
MedQA (Vals AI)58.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)46.2%34.7%GPT-3.5 Turbo
MMLU68.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1106Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1104Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1115Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1074Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-3.5 TurboLlama 3.2 3B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index16 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-3.5 TurboLlama 3.2 3B InstructLeader
IFBenchNot measured26.2%Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured4.3%Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
DTBench48.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
LMCA9.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
LMArena TextNot measured1110Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1089Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1094Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1180Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1019Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1017Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1056Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured949Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1105Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1100Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1096Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1083Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 32 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-3.5 TurboLlama 3.2 3B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

GPT-3.5 Turbo$0.0013Fits in one request
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct$0.0002Fits in one request

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-3.5 Turbo$0.029Exceeds the context window
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct$0.0035Fits in one request

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-3.5 Turbo$0.115Exceeds the context window
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct$0.013Exceeds the context window

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of GPT-3.5 Turbo and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-3.5 TurboMeta Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
MakerOpenAIMeta Llama
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedMay 28, 2023September 25, 2024
Context window16K131K
Input $/Mtok$0.50$0.0505
Output $/Mtok$1.50$0.3325
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-3.5 Turbo better than Llama 3.2 3B Instruct for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GPT-3.5 Turbo for work measured by AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GPT-3.5 Turbo or Llama 3.2 3B Instruct?

GPT-3.5 Turbo costs $0.50 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens; Llama 3.2 3B Instruct costs $0.0505 and $0.3325. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-3.5 Turbo or Llama 3.2 3B Instruct?

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct, with 131K tokens against 16K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-3.5 Turbo vs Llama 3.2 3B Instruct comparison based on?

3 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 23, 2026. GPT-3.5 Turbo's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next