+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct vs Phi-3.5-mini-instruct
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Phi-3.5-mini-instruct leads with 25.3% higher average benchmark score. Both models have similar pricing. Overall, Phi-3.5-mini-instruct is the stronger choice for coding tasks.
+
+
+
+
Meta
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct is a language model developed by Meta. The model shows competitive results across 15 benchmarks. It excels particularly in NIH/Multi-needle (84.7%), ARC-C (78.6%), GSM8k (77.7%). It supports a 256K token context window for handling large documents. The model is available through 1 API provider. Released in 2024, it represents Meta's latest advancement in AI technology.
+
+
+
+
Microsoft
Phi-3.5-mini-instruct is a language model developed by Microsoft. The model shows competitive results across 31 benchmarks. It excels particularly in GSM8k (86.2%), ARC-C (84.6%), RULER (84.1%). It supports a 256K token context window for handling large documents. The model is available through 1 API provider. It's licensed for commercial use, making it suitable for enterprise applications. Released in 2024, it represents Microsoft's latest advancement in AI technology.
1 month newer
Phi-3.5-mini-instruct
Microsoft
2024-08-23
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($0.17 cheaper)
+
+
+
+
Phi-3.5-mini-instruct
Input:$0.10
Output:$0.10
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 39 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Average Score:21.4%
+
+
+
+
Phi-3.5-mini-instruct
Average Score:46.7%(+25.3%)
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
+
+
+
+
Phi-3.5-mini-instruct
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Avg Score:21.4%
Providers:1
+
+
+
+
Phi-3.5-mini-instruct
Avg Score:46.7%(+25.3%)
Providers:1