Compare / Qwen3-32B vs Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

Qwen3-32B vs Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 23 results on 4 sources that measured both models.

AlibabaQwen3-32B Released 28 Apr 2025 · $0.14 in · $0.40 out
MetaLlama 3.2 3B Instruct Released 25 Sep 2024 · $0.050 in · $0.33 out
Qwen3-32B wins 21Llama 3.2 3B Instruct wins 2

Of the 23 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.

Results as of 9 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-09-dd620e778ac5). See also Alibaba vs Meta, every model from both labs.

Qwen3-32B or Llama 3.2 3B Instruct? The short answer

Pick Qwen3-32B if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 8.6 against 5.7). Pick Llama 3.2 3B Instruct if cost matters more: it costs 41% less per token.

  • Llama 3.2 3B Instruct is cheaper: $0.12 against $0.21 per million tokens, 41% less.
  • Qwen3-32B scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 8.6 against 5.7.
  • Qwen3-32B is newer: released 28 Apr 2025, against 25 Sep 2024 for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct.
  • On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Qwen3-32B does better for agents and tool use, reasoning and knowledge and writing.

Head to head

8.6
Intelligence Index
5.7
$0.21
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$0.12
131,072
Context window, tokens
131,072

Every fact side by side

Qwen3-32BLlama 3.2 3B Instruct
Price per million tokens$0.14 in · $0.40 out$0.050 in · $0.33 out
Blended (3 in : 1 out)$0.21$0.12
Cheapest host, blended$0.13 (DeepInfra, FP8)$0.12 (Parasail, BF16)
Intelligence Index8.65.7
Spring Prompt overall––
Output speed, tokens a second––
Context window131,072 tokens131,072 tokens
Released28 Apr 2025 (newer)25 Sep 2024
WeightsOpenOpen
Developer based inChinathe US

Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.

Which is better for what

Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.

Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls 113 of 164 161 of 164
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge 148 of 198 186 of 198
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality 139 of 188 188 of 188
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers 22 of 152 not measured

Every shared result

Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.

MeasureQwen3-32BLlama 3.2 3B Instruct
Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results
Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 195 · 340 of 387 measured 1,347 1,167
Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 203 · 339 of 380 measured 1,340 1,146
Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 205 · 330 of 385 measured 1,304 1,145
Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 188 · 233 of 243 measured 8.6thinking reasoning 5.7
GPQA Diamond% of questions, higher is better 167 · 228 of 231 measured 66.8%thinking reasoning 25.5%
Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 168 · 186 of 242 measured 7.4%thinking reasoning 5.3%
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 reported by Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 · 3 results
Overall accuracy · BFCL% correct, higher is better 24 · 71 of 81 measured 48.7%bfcl fc 22.0%bfcl fc
Irrelevance detection · BFCL% correct, higher is better 37 · 73 of 81 measured 82.4%bfcl prompt 52.1%bfcl fc
Memory · BFCL% correct, higher is better 21 · 61 of 81 measured 26.7%bfcl fc 6.2%bfcl fc
UGI Leaderboard reported by UGI Leaderboard · 3 results
Writing score · UGIscore out of 100, higher is better 134 · 226 of 230 measured 33.0no reasoning 10.4
Requested-length error · UGI% off the requested word count, lower is better 99 · 171 of 230 measured 19.0%no reasoning 31.0%
Style adherence · UGIscore from 0 to 1, higher is better 175 · 82 of 230 measured 0.32no reasoning 0.36
Show all 23 results (11 more)
MeasureQwen3-32BLlama 3.2 3B Instruct
Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results
Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 159 · 310 of 338 measured 1,398 1,179
Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 198 · 336 of 387 measured 1,331 1,146
Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 217 · 337 of 386 measured 1,308 1,143
Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results
IFBench% of instructions, higher is better 155 · 191 of 195 measured 36.3%thinking reasoning 26.2%
Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 222 · 220 of 233 measured 0.0%no reasoning 4.3%
τ²-bench telecom% of tasks, higher is better 135 · 165 of 193 measured 29.8%thinking reasoning 21.1%
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 reported by Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 · 5 results
Multi-turn tasks · BFCL% correct, higher is better 17 · 63 of 81 measured 47.9%bfcl fc 4.0%bfcl fc
Relevance detection · BFCL% correct, higher is better 8 · 26 of 81 measured 93.8%bfcl fc 87.5%bfcl fc
Single-turn calls (curated) · BFCL% correct, higher is better 3 · 49 of 81 measured 90.3%bfcl prompt 82.7%bfcl fc
Single-turn calls (user-contributed) · BFCL% correct, higher is better 3 · 70 of 81 measured 82.0%bfcl fc 58.3%bfcl fc
Web search · BFCL% correct, higher is better 28 · 56 of 81 measured 26.0%bfcl prompt 1.0%bfcl fc

Quick answers

Is Qwen3-32B better than Llama 3.2 3B Instruct?

Pick Qwen3-32B if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 8.6 against 5.7). Pick Llama 3.2 3B Instruct if cost matters more: it costs 41% less per token.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3-32B or Llama 3.2 3B Instruct?

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct is cheaper: $0.12 against $0.21 per million tokens, 41% less.

Which is better for agents and tool use, Qwen3-32B or Llama 3.2 3B Instruct?

Qwen3-32B ranks 113 of 164 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 161 for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct.

Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, Qwen3-32B or Llama 3.2 3B Instruct?

Qwen3-32B ranks 148 of 198 models on sale for hard questions across science, maths and general knowledge, against 186 for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct.

Which is better for writing, Qwen3-32B or Llama 3.2 3B Instruct?

Qwen3-32B ranks 139 of 188 models on sale for what people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality, against 188 for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct.

Run Qwen3-32B and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct on your own prompt

Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.