Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-4o (2024-05-13) vs Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

GPT-4o (2024-05-13) leads Llama 3.2 3B Instruct on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 7.3 to 5.7, and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct costs 45.1x less per output token ($0.3325 vs $15.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 29 benchmarks have a result for both.

GPT-4o (2024-05-13)OpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
27.1
Output $/M
$15.00
28
Llama 3.2 3B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.3325
1
vs boards won of 29 shared

GPT-4o (2024-05-13) 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-4o (2024-05-13) for work measured by Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Shared results
29
GPT-4o (2024-05-13) only
15
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct only
6
Like-for-like categories
7 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-4o (2024-05-13) not benchmarked, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
General, 35.3 points apart on average over 12 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena Text: Russian: GPT-4o (2024-05-13) 1285 against Llama 3.2 3B Instruct 949, 47.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-4o (2024-05-13) $15.00 against Llama 3.2 3B Instruct $0.3325 per million output tokens, 45.1x apart.
Context window
GPT-4o (2024-05-13) takes 128K 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-4o (2024-05-13)BarsLlama 3.2 3B InstructTies
Coding30
Intelligence10
Agentic work10
Reasoning41
Math20
Knowledge50
General120
All shared boards281
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index30
Coding benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-05-13) and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-05-13)Llama 3.2 3B InstructLeader
AA Coding Index24.2Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-05-13) measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)33.4%8.3%GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: coding12971098GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: software and IT12971103GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-05-13) and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-05-13)Llama 3.2 3B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index7.35.7GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-05-13) and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-05-13)Llama 3.2 3B InstructLeader
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured21.1%Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
METR time horizons40.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-05-13) measured
BALROG32.3%10.1%GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)Not measured21.9%Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index41
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-05-13) and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-05-13)Llama 3.2 3B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond50.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-05-13) measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)52.6%25.5%GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)1.8%5.3%Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)48.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-05-13) measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts12811095GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: expert12501090GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English12931141GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Math benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-05-13) and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-05-13)Llama 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
OTIS Mock AIME6.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-05-13) measured
MATH level 551.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-05-13) measured
LMArena Text: math12841126GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: mathematical work12841128GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-05-13) and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-05-13)Llama 3.2 3B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)74.0%34.7%GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
MMLU84.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-05-13) measured
LMArena Text: science12951106GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare12781104GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: legal and government13141115GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: business and finance12621074GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-05-13) and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-05-13)Llama 3.2 3B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index120
General benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-05-13) and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-05-13)Llama 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
LMArena Text13001110GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: instruction following12781089GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: creative writing12911094GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Vision1137Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-05-13) measured
LMArena Text: English13121180GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: non-English12831019GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: Chinese12771017GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: German12831056GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: Japanese1257Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-05-13) measured
LMArena Text: Korean1234Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-05-13) measured
LMArena Text: French1304Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-05-13) measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1292Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-05-13) measured
LMArena Text: Russian1285949GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: Polish1365Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-05-13) measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn13021105GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: longer queries12881100GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: writing and language12981096GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12891083GPT-4o (2024-05-13)
LMArena Vision: English1147Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-05-13) measured
LMArena Vision: Chinese1132Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-05-13) measured
Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-05-13) and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-05-13)Llama 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-4o (2024-05-13)$0.013Fits 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-4o (2024-05-13)$0.295Fits in one request
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-4o (2024-05-13)$1.15Exceeds 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-4o (2024-05-13) and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-4o (2024-05-13)Meta Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
MakerOpenAIMeta Llama
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedMay 13, 2024September 25, 2024
Context window128K131K
Input $/Mtok$5.00$0.0505
Output $/Mtok$15.00$0.3325
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-4o (2024-05-13) 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-4o (2024-05-13) for work measured by Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GPT-4o (2024-05-13) or Llama 3.2 3B Instruct?

GPT-4o (2024-05-13) costs $5.00 per million input tokens and $15.00 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-4o (2024-05-13) or Llama 3.2 3B Instruct?

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

How many benchmarks is the GPT-4o (2024-05-13) vs Llama 3.2 3B Instruct comparison based on?

29 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GPT-4o (2024-05-13)'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