+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct vs Mistral NeMo Instruct
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Mistral NeMo Instruct leads with 9.2% higher average benchmark score. Both models have similar pricing. Overall, Mistral NeMo Instruct 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.
+
+
+
+
Mistral AI
Mistral Nemo was developed as a mid-sized instruction-tuned model, designed to balance capability with efficiency for practical deployments. Built to serve as a versatile foundation for various applications, it provides reliable performance across general language understanding and generation tasks.
2 months newer
Mistral NeMo Instruct
Mistral AI
2024-07-18
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Meta
2024-09-25
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Pricing Comparison
Cost per million tokens (USD)
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Input:$0.01
Output:$0.02($0.27 cheaper)
+
+
+
+
Mistral NeMo Instruct
Input:$0.15
Output:$0.15
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 2 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Average Score:66.6%
+
+
+
+
Mistral NeMo Instruct
Average Score:75.8%(+9.2%)
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
+
+
+
+
Mistral NeMo Instruct
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Avg Score:66.6%
Providers:1
+
+
+
+
Mistral NeMo Instruct
Avg Score:75.8%(+9.2%)
Providers:2