+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct vs Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct leads with 5.1% higher average benchmark score. Both models have similar pricing. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is available on 5 providers. Overall, Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is the stronger choice for coding tasks.
+
+
+
+
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B was developed as a flagship-tier open-source model, designed to provide advanced capabilities with 90 billion parameters. Built to serve applications requiring high-quality reasoning and generation, it represents a powerful option within the Llama 3.2 series for demanding tasks.
+
+
+
+
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 90B 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 90B Instruct
Input:$0.35
Output:$0.40
+
+
+
+
Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base
Input:$0.10
Output:$0.30($0.35 cheaper)
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 3 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Average Score:64.3%(+5.1%)
+
+
+
+
Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base
Average Score:59.3%
Provider Availability & Performance
Available providers and their performance metrics
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
5 providers
Bedrock
Throughput: 100 tok/s
Latency: 0.5ms
DeepInfra
Throughput: 24 tok/s
Latency: 0.5ms
Fireworks
Throughput: 50 tok/s
Latency: 0.5ms
Hyperbolic
Throughput: 42 tok/s
Latency: 0.5ms
Together
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Avg Score:64.3%(+5.1%)
Providers:5
+
+
+
+
Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base
Avg Score:59.3%
Providers:1