+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct vs Llama 4 Scout
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Llama 4 Scout leads with 18.8% higher average benchmark score. Llama 4 Scout offers 19.7M more tokens in context window than Llama 3.2 3B Instruct. Both models have similar pricing. Llama 4 Scout supports multimodal inputs. Llama 4 Scout is available on 6 providers. Overall, Llama 4 Scout is the stronger choice for coding tasks.
+
+
+
+
Meta
Llama 3.2 3B was created as an ultra-compact open-source model, designed to enable on-device and edge deployment scenarios. Built with just 3 billion parameters while retaining instruction-following abilities, it brings Meta's language technology to mobile devices, IoT applications, and resource-constrained environments.
+
+
+
+
Meta
Llama 4 Scout was created as an exploratory variant in the Llama 4 family, designed to investigate new architectures and optimization strategies. Built as part of Meta's commitment to advancing open-source AI, it serves as a testbed for innovations that may inform future model releases.
6 months newer
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Meta
2024-09-25
Llama 4 Scout
Meta
2025-04-05
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Pricing Comparison
Cost per million tokens (USD)
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Input:$0.01
Output:$0.02($0.35 cheaper)
+
+
+
+
Llama 4 Scout
Input:$0.08
Output:$0.30
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 4 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Average Score:50.6%
+
+
+
+
Llama 4 Scout
Average Score:69.4%(+18.8%)
Provider Availability & Performance
Available providers and their performance metrics
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
1 providers
DeepInfra
Throughput: 171.5 tok/s
Latency: 0.24ms
+
+
+
+
Llama 4 Scout
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Avg Score:50.6%
Providers:1
+
+
+
+
Llama 4 Scout
Avg Score:69.4%(+18.8%)
Providers:6