The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

Claude Haiku 5.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 50.3 to -6.1. Llama 3.2 3B Instruct is 16.0x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · Meta · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Haiku 5.5 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 50.3 to -6.1, ranking #18 overall.

On price, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct is roughly 16.0x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Claude Haiku 5.5 also accepts a larger context window (1,000,000 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Claude Haiku 5.5

  • overall performance matters — it scores 50.3 and ranks #18 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,000,000 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026

Choose Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

  • cost matters — it's about 16.0x cheaper per token
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Haiku 5.5
Anthropic
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Meta
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
50.3
#18
-6.1
#375
Reasoning
47.4
#26
-6.7
#369
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$0.10 / M
$0.01 / M
Output price
$0.50 / M
$0.02 / M
Context window
1,000,000
128,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

2 shared
Index
Claude Haiku 5.5
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Math
25.7#110
-3.7#319
Tool use
20.8#57
4.7#166
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

36 reported for Claude Haiku 5.5 · 15 for Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

No common benchmarks found

Claude Haiku 5.5 and Llama 3.2 3B Instructdon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct costs less

For input processing, Claude Haiku 5.5 ($0.10/1M tokens) is 10.0x more expensive than Llama 3.2 3B Instruct ($0.01/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Haiku 5.5 ($0.50/1M tokens) is 25.0x more expensive than Llama 3.2 3B Instruct ($0.02/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Haiku 5.5 is more expensive than Llama 3.2 3B Instruct.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Wed Oct 07 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Haiku 5.5
Input tokens$0.10
Output tokens$0.50
Best providerAnthropic
Meta
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Input tokens$0.01
Output tokens$0.02
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Claude Haiku 5.5 accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to Llama 3.2 3B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Both models can generate responses up to 128,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Haiku 5.5
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Meta
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Wed Oct 07 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Claude Haiku 5.5 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Llama 3.2 3B Instruct does not.

Claude Haiku 5.5 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude Haiku 5.5

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Haiku 5.5 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 Haiku 5.5

Proprietary

Closed source

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

Llama 3.2 Community License

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Haiku 5.5 was released on 2026-10-07, while Llama 3.2 3B Instruct was released on 2024-09-25.

Claude Haiku 5.5 is 25 months newer than Llama 3.2 3B Instruct.

Claude Haiku 5.5

Oct 7, 2026

0 days ago

2.0yr newer
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

Sep 25, 2024

2.0 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Claude Haiku 5.5 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-01, while Llama 3.2 3B Instruct's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Claude Haiku 5.5's training data extends to 2026-06-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without Llama 3.2 3B Instruct's cutoff date.

Claude Haiku 5.5

Jun 2026

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

—

Provider Availability

Claude Haiku 5.5 is available from Anthropic. Llama 3.2 3B Instruct is available from DeepInfra.

Claude Haiku 5.5

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $0.10/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.50/1M

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.01/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.02/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Haiku 5.5 and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Haiku 5.5
✓ Preferred
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Llama 3.2 3B Instruct.

Which is better, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Llama 3.2 3B Instruct?

Claude Haiku 5.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 50.3 to -6.1. Claude Haiku 5.5 is made by Anthropic and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct is made by Meta. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Claude Haiku 5.5 compare to Llama 3.2 3B Instruct in benchmarks?

Claude Haiku 5.5 scores Global-MMLU: 87.8%, MILU: 87.6%, BenchCAD (with Python tool): 87.0%, Chartography: 86.2%, SWE-bench Multilingual: 83.7%. Llama 3.2 3B Instruct scores NIH/Multi-needle: 84.7%, ARC-C: 78.6%, GSM8k: 77.7%, IFEval: 77.4%, HellaSwag: 69.8%.

Is Claude Haiku 5.5 cheaper than Llama 3.2 3B Instruct?

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct is 10.0x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Haiku 5.5 costs $0.10/M input and $0.50/M output via anthropic. Llama 3.2 3B Instruct costs $0.01/M input and $0.02/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Haiku 5.5 and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct?

Claude Haiku 5.5 supports 1.0M tokens and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct supports 128K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude Haiku 5.5 and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (50.3 vs -6.1), context window (1.0M vs 128K), input pricing ($0.10 vs $0.01/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs Llama 3.2 Community License). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Haiku 5.5 and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct?

Claude Haiku 5.5 is developed by Anthropic and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct is developed by Meta.

Related comparisons