Model Comparison

Claude 3 Opus vs Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

Claude 3 Opus significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

7 benchmarks

Claude 3 Opus outperforms in 7 benchmarks (ARC-C, GPQA, GSM8k, HellaSwag, MATH, MGSM, MMLU), while Llama 3.2 3B Instruct is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude 3 Opus significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Thu Apr 02 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Cost data unavailable.

Lowest available price from all providers
Thu Apr 02 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude 3 Opus
Input tokens$15.00
Output tokens$75.00
Best providerAnthropic
Meta
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Input tokens$0.00
Output tokens$0.00
Best providerUnknown Organization
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Claude 3 Opus specifies input context (200,000 tokens). Only Claude 3 Opus specifies output context (200,000 tokens).

Anthropic
Claude 3 Opus
Input200,000 tokens
Output200,000 tokens
Meta
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Thu Apr 02 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Claude 3 Opus supports multimodal inputs, whereas Llama 3.2 3B Instruct does not.

Claude 3 Opus can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude 3 Opus

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude 3 Opus is licensed under a proprietary license, while Llama 3.2 3B Instruct uses Llama 3.2 Community License.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Claude 3 Opus

Proprietary

Closed source

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

Llama 3.2 Community License

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude 3 Opus was released on 2024-02-29, while Llama 3.2 3B Instruct was released on 2024-09-25.

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct is 7 months newer than Claude 3 Opus.

Claude 3 Opus

Feb 29, 2024

2.1 years ago

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

Sep 25, 2024

1.5 years ago

6mo newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Anthropic
Larger context window (200,000 tokens)
Supports multimodal inputs
Higher ARC-C score (96.4% vs 78.6%)
Higher GPQA score (50.4% vs 32.8%)
Higher GSM8k score (95.0% vs 77.7%)
Higher HellaSwag score (95.4% vs 69.8%)
Higher MATH score (60.1% vs 48.0%)
Higher MGSM score (90.7% vs 58.2%)
Higher MMLU score (86.8% vs 63.4%)
Meta
Has open weights

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Anthropic
Claude 3 Opus
Meta
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

FAQ

Common questions about Claude 3 Opus vs Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

Claude 3 Opus significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Claude 3 Opus is made by Anthropic and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct is made by Meta. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.
Claude 3 Opus scores ARC-C: 96.4%, HellaSwag: 95.4%, GSM8k: 95.0%, MGSM: 90.7%, BIG-Bench Hard: 86.8%. Llama 3.2 3B Instruct scores NIH/Multi-needle: 84.7%, ARC-C: 78.6%, GSM8k: 77.7%, IFEval: 77.4%, HellaSwag: 69.8%.
Claude 3 Opus supports 200K tokens and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.
Key differences include multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs Llama 3.2 Community License). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Claude 3 Opus is developed by Anthropic and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct is developed by Meta.