Model Comparison
Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision)
vs. Qwen3 8B (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Meta, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Al Qwen3 8B (Reasoning) 12 metric wins Strongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
Qwen3 8B (Reasoning)
100.0 value score
39.9 reasoning / $0.37/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3 8B (Reasoning)
$0.11/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3 8B (Reasoning)
39.9 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3 8B (Reasoning)
9.0 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
Qwen3 8B (Reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3 8B (Reasoning) is 12.5x cheaper on input tokens than Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision).
Speed gap
Qwen3 8B (Reasoning) generates about 1.2x as many tokens per second as Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision).
Reasoning gap
Qwen3 8B (Reasoning) leads Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision) by 14.3 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
Qwen3 8B (Reasoning) wins 12 measurable categories, including Value, Input price, Output price, Blended price.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision)
Meta
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3 8B (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Me Llama 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision) | Top Pick Al Qwen3 8B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $1.38/1M | $0.11/1M |
| Output Cost | $1.38/1M | $1.15/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.38/1M | $0.37/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Meta | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Sep 25, 2024 | Apr 28, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 48.7 tok/s | 60.8 tok/s |
| TTFT | 553ms | 1430ms |
| Latency | 553ms | 34335ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 17.2 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 25.6 | 39.9 |
| Intelligence | 11.9 | 13.2 |
| Coding | — | 9.0 |
| Math | — | 19.0 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 43.2% | 58.9% |
| MMLU Pro | 67.1% | 74.3% |
| HLE | 4.9% | 4.2% |
| LiveCodeBench | 21.4% | 40.6% |
| MATH 500 | 62.9% | 90.4% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 19.0% |
| AIME (Original) | 5.0% | 74.7% |
| SciCode | 24.0% | 22.6% |
| LCR | — | 0.0% |
| IFBench | — | 33.5% |
| TAU-bench v2 | — | 27.8% |
| TerminalBench Hard | — | 2.3% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3 8B (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.11/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3 8B (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 39.9 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3 8B (Reasoning) reaches a 9.0 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 3.2 Instruct 90B (Vision)
- General-purpose AI
- Versatile applications
Qwen3 8B (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
