Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct vs Qwen3.6 27B

Qwen3.6 27B leads Llama 3.2 3B Instruct on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 21.4 to 5.7, and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct costs 8.1x less per output token ($0.3325 vs $2.70 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 6 benchmarks have a result for both.

Llama 3.2 3B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.3325
0
Qwen3.6 27BQwen
Coding
36.8
Overall
45.3
Output $/M
$2.70
6
vs boards won of 6 shared

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct or Qwen3.6 27B: which to pick

Only Qwen3.6 27B has a coding score, 36.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; Llama 3.2 3B Instruct has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Llama 3.2 3B Instruct for output tokens 8.1x cheaper ($0.3325 vs $2.70 per million).

Shared results
6
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct only
29
Qwen3.6 27B only
18
Like-for-like categories
4 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, Qwen3.6 27B 36.8 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Agentic work, 73.1 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: Llama 3.2 3B Instruct 21.1% against Qwen3.6 27B 94.2%, 73.1 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct $0.3325 against Qwen3.6 27B $2.70 per million output tokens, 8.1x apart.
Context window
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct takes 131K tokens, Qwen3.6 27B 262K.

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 InstructBarsQwen3.6 27BTies
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning02
General02
All shared boards06
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index8 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3B InstructQwen3.6 27BLeader
AA Coding IndexNot measured53.7Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured70.0%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured11.9%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)8.3%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
SciCodeNot measured42.8%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured34.8%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
LMArena Text: coding1098Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1103Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3B InstructQwen3.6 27BLeader
AA Intelligence Index5.721.4Qwen3.6 27B
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured146.2Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3B InstructQwen3.6 27BLeader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured18.5Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
τ²-Bench Telecom21.1%94.2%Qwen3.6 27B
BALROG10.1%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)21.9%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Reasoning benchmarks for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3B InstructQwen3.6 27BLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)25.5%84.2%Qwen3.6 27B
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)5.3%23.1%Qwen3.6 27B
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured85.9%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured7.0%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1095Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: expert1090Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1141Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3B InstructQwen3.6 27BLeader
AA Math Index3.3Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)3.3%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured91.1%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured35.1%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
LMArena Text: math1126Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1128Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3B InstructQwen3.6 27BLeader
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured53.2%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured62.3%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured71.3%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured68.3%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)34.7%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: science1106Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1104Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1115Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1074Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 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 Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3B InstructQwen3.6 27BLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
General benchmarks for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3B InstructQwen3.6 27BLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured45.6%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
IFBench26.2%67.6%Qwen3.6 27B
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)4.3%77.3%Qwen3.6 27B
DTBenchNot measured78.1%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
LMCANot measured34.5%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
LMArena Text1110Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1089Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1094Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: English1180Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: non-English1019Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1017Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: German1056Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Russian949Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1105Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1100Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1096Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1083Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 29 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 Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 3B InstructQwen3.6 27BLeader
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
Qwen3.6 27B$0.0018Fits 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
Qwen3.6 27B$0.031Fits 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
Qwen3.6 27B$0.117Fits in one request

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 Qwen3.6 27B
SpecificationMeta Llama 3.2 3B InstructQwen3.6 27B
MakerMeta LlamaQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 25, 2024April 27, 2026
Context window131K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.0505$0.45
Output $/Mtok$0.3325$2.70
Coding indexNot benchmarked36.8
Independent measurements behind it02
Cost per solved taskNot computable$1.30
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Llama 3.2 3B Instruct better than Qwen3.6 27B for coding?

Only Qwen3.6 27B has a coding score, 36.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; Llama 3.2 3B Instruct has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Llama 3.2 3B Instruct for output tokens 8.1x cheaper ($0.3325 vs $2.70 per million).

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct or Qwen3.6 27B?

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct costs $0.0505 per million input tokens and $0.3325 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B costs $0.45 and $2.70. Cost per solved task is known for Qwen3.6 27B only.

Which has the bigger context window, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct or Qwen3.6 27B?

Qwen3.6 27B, with 262K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the Llama 3.2 3B Instruct vs Qwen3.6 27B comparison based on?

6 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Llama 3.2 3B Instruct's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.6 27B's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next