+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct vs Pixtral-12B
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct leads with 3.4% higher average benchmark score. Llama 3.2 3B Instruct offers 119.8K more tokens in context window than Pixtral-12B. Both models have similar pricing. Pixtral-12B supports multimodal inputs. Both models have their strengths depending on your specific coding needs.
+
+
+
+
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
Pixtral 12B was introduced as Mistral's multimodal vision-language model, designed to understand and reason about both images and text. Built with 12 billion parameters for integrated visual and textual processing, it extends Mistral's capabilities into multimodal applications.
8 days newer
Pixtral-12B
Mistral AI
2024-09-17
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)
+
+
+
+
Pixtral-12B
Input:$0.15
Output:$0.15
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 3 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Average Score:62.9%(+3.4%)
+
+
+
+
Pixtral-12B
Average Score:59.5%
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
+
+
+
+
Pixtral-12B
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Avg Score:62.9%(+3.4%)
Providers:1
+
+
+
+
Pixtral-12B
Avg Score:59.5%
Providers:1