Model Comparison
Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B
vs. Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Meta, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Al Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning) 11 metric wins Strongest on: Reasoning, Intelligence, Math
Best Value
Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B
100.0 value score
15.9 reasoning / $0.10/1M
Lowest Price
Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B
$0.10/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning)
32.7 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B
4.9 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B is 1.5x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning).
Speed gap
Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B generates about 2.5x as many tokens per second as Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning) leads Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B by 16.8 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning) wins 11 measurable categories, including Reasoning, Intelligence, Math, GPQA.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B
Meta
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Me Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B | Top Pick Al Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.10/1M | $0.15/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.10/1M | $0.59/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.10/1M | $0.26/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Meta | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Jul 23, 2024 | Apr 28, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 192.2 tok/s | 78.1 tok/s |
| TTFT | 545ms | 1210ms |
| Latency | 545ms | 1210ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 79.3 |
| Reasoning Score | 15.9 | 32.7 |
| Intelligence | 11.8 | 14.5 |
| Coding | 4.9 | — |
| Math | 4.3 | 19.7 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 25.9% | 53.5% |
| MMLU Pro | 47.6% | 72.7% |
| HLE | 5.1% | 4.3% |
| LiveCodeBench | 11.6% | 28.8% |
| MATH 500 | 51.9% | 86.9% |
| AIME 2025 | 4.3% | 19.7% |
| AIME (Original) | 7.7% | 30.3% |
| SciCode | 13.2% | 28.0% |
| LCR | 15.7% | 0.0% |
| IFBench | 28.6% | 31.5% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 16.4% | — |
| TerminalBench Hard | 0.8% | — |
Key Takeaways
Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B offers the best value at $0.10/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 32.7 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B reaches a 4.9 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Code generation
- Software development
Qwen3 32B (Non-reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
Recommended Comparisons
Popular alternatives 
