+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct vs Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base leads with 11.2% higher average benchmark score. Both models have similar pricing. Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base supports multimodal inputs. Overall, Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base 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 Small 3.1 24B Base represents an updated iteration of the 24B foundation model, developed with architectural refinements and improved training. Built to provide enhanced base capabilities for fine-tuning, it incorporates learnings from previous versions for better downstream performance.
5 months newer
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Meta
2024-09-25
Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base
Mistral AI
2025-03-17
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Pricing Comparison
Cost per million tokens (USD)
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Input:$0.01
Output:$0.02($0.37 cheaper)
+
+
+
+
Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base
Input:$0.10
Output:$0.30
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 2 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Average Score:48.1%
+
+
+
+
Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base
Average Score:59.3%(+11.2%)
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 Small 3.1 24B Base
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Avg Score:48.1%
Providers:1
+
+
+
+
Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base
Avg Score:59.3%(+11.2%)
Providers:1