Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct leads Llama 3.2 3B Instruct on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 7.7 to 5.7, and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct costs 2.2x less per output token ($0.3325 vs $0.72 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 35 benchmarks have a result for both.

Llama 3.2 3B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.3325
1
Llama 3.3 70B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
26.0
Output $/M
$0.72
34
vs boards won of 35 shared

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct or Llama 3.3 70B Instruct: which to pick

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

Pick Llama 3.2 3B Instruct for output tokens 2.2x cheaper ($0.3325 vs $0.72 per million) and work measured by LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) or LMArena Text: coding, where it leads.

Shared results
35
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct only
0
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct only
17
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
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct not benchmarked, Llama 3.3 70B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
Knowledge, 30.2 points apart on average over 5 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena Text: Russian: Llama 3.2 3B Instruct 949 against Llama 3.3 70B Instruct 1252, 41.9 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct $0.3325 against Llama 3.3 70B Instruct $0.72 per million output tokens, 2.2x apart.
Context window
Both take 131K tokens.

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
CategoryLlama 3.2 3B InstructBarsLlama 3.3 70B InstructTies
Coding03
Intelligence01
Agentic work03
Reasoning14
Math04
Knowledge05
General014
All shared boards134
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index03
Coding benchmarks for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3B InstructLlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
AA Coding IndexNot measured11.9Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)8.3%28.8%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured3.0%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
WeirdMLNot measured14.4%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: coding10981268Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: software and IT11031273Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3B InstructLlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index5.77.7Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured127.3Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
Agentic work benchmarks for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3B InstructLlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom21.1%26.6%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BALROG10.1%23.0%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)21.9%31.9%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index14
Reasoning benchmarks for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3B InstructLlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)25.5%49.8%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)5.3%3.6%Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured47.4%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
SimpleBenchNot measured19.9%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts10951257Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: expert10901225Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English11411277Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Math benchmarks for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3B InstructLlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
AA Math Index3.37.7Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)3.3%7.7%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured5.1%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
MATH level 5Not measured41.6%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: math11261267Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: mathematical work11281267Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Knowledge benchmarks for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3B InstructLlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)34.7%71.3%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
MMLUNot measured86.3%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: science11061284Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare11041275Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: legal and government11151284Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: business and finance10741243Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
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 Llama 3.2 3B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3B InstructLlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index014
General benchmarks for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3B InstructLlama 3.3 70B InstructLeader
IFBench26.2%47.1%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)4.3%15.7%Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
DTBenchNot measured59.5%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMCANot measured17.5%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
Fiction.LiveBenchNot measured33.3%Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text11101274Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: instruction following10891242Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: creative writing10941250Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: English11801303Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: non-English10191236Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: Chinese10171217Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: German10561251Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1150Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1142Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1282Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1269Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Russian9491252Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1259Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn11051280Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: longer queries11001255Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: writing and language10961255Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
LMArena Text: entertainment and media10831241Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3B InstructLlama 3.3 70B 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

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct$0.0002Fits in one request
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct$0.0008Fits in one request

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct$0.0035Fits in one request
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct$0.025Fits in one request

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct$0.013Exceeds the context window
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct$0.097Exceeds 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 Llama 3.2 3B Instruct and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
SpecificationMeta Llama 3.2 3B InstructMeta Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
MakerMeta LlamaMeta Llama
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 25, 2024December 6, 2024
Context window131K131K
Input $/Mtok$0.0505$0.45
Output $/Mtok$0.3325$0.72
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Llama 3.2 3B Instruct better than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Llama 3.2 3B Instruct for output tokens 2.2x cheaper ($0.3325 vs $0.72 per million) and work measured by LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) or LMArena Text: coding, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct or Llama 3.3 70B Instruct?

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct costs $0.0505 per million input tokens and $0.3325 per million output tokens; Llama 3.3 70B Instruct costs $0.45 and $0.72. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct or Llama 3.3 70B Instruct?

Neither: both take 131K tokens.

How many benchmarks is the Llama 3.2 3B Instruct vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct comparison based on?

35 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Llama 3.2 3B Instruct's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next