Claude Opus 4.1 vs Llama-3.2-3B
Llama-3.2-3B comes out ahead, 49 to 27 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
AnthropicClaude Opus 4.1
27/100- ECI144.1
- Price$15.00 / $75.00
- Context200K
- Our pick
MetaLlama-3.2-3B
49/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.335
- Context131K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Llama-3.2-3B is our pick
Llama-3.2-3B is the better all-round choice, scoring 49/100 against Claude Opus 4.1 (27). It leads on price. Claude Opus 4.1 wins on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceLlama-3.2-3BLlama-3.2-3B $0.159 · Claude Opus 4.1 $30.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextClaude Opus 4.1Claude Opus 4.1 200,000 · Llama-3.2-3B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsClaude Opus 4.1Claude Opus 4.1: Text, Images, PDFs · Llama-3.2-3B: Text
- Self-hostingLlama-3.2-3BPublishes downloadable weights (Llama 3.2 Community License)
| Measure | Weight | Claude Opus 4.1 | Llama-3.2-3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 0 | 88 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 70 | 0 |
| Context window | 20% | 32 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 27/100 | 49/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Claude Opus 4.1Anthropic | Llama-3.2-3BMeta |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 144.1 | — |
| ECI rank | #81 of 148 | — |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 77.3% | — |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | 12.6% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 68.9% | — |
| SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues | 73.4% | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $15.00 | $0.10 (best) |
| Output | $75.00 | $0.335 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $30.00 | $0.159 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 14 providers | Median of 3 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 200,000 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 32,000 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No |
| PDFs | Yes | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | No |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | OpenLlama 3.2 Community License |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 14 (best) | 3 |
| Released | Aug 5, 2025 | Sep 25, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Mar 31, 2025 | Dec 2023 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Claude Opus 4.1$300.00
- Llama-3.2-3B$1.67
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Claude Opus 4.1 or Llama-3.2-3B?
Llama-3.2-3B is the better all-round choice, scoring 49/100 against Claude Opus 4.1 (27). It leads on price. Claude Opus 4.1 wins on inputs & features and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or Llama-3.2-3B?
Llama-3.2-3B is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.335 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). Claude Opus 4.1 costs $15.00 input / $75.00 output per million tokens (median across 14 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.159 per million tokens for Llama-3.2-3B versus $30.00 for Claude Opus 4.1 (189× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Claude Opus 4.1 has an ECI of 144.1 and Llama-3.2-3B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Llama-3.2-3B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Llama-3.2-3B does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Opus 4.1 has the largest context window at 200,000 tokens, against 131,072 for Llama-3.2-3B. Maximum output per response: Claude Opus 4.1 up to 32,000, Llama-3.2-3B up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Claude Opus 4.1 accepts text, images and PDFs; Llama-3.2-3B accepts text. Claude Opus 4.1 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Llama-3.2-3B publishes its weights (Llama 3.2 Community License) and can be self-hosted; Claude Opus 4.1 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Claude Opus 4.1 is the newest, released Aug 5, 2025. Llama-3.2-3B came out Sep 25, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Opus 4.1 Mar 31, 2025, Llama-3.2-3B Dec 2023.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add o3-proThree-way comparison
- Claude Opus 4.1 vs o3-proOpenAI · ECI 147.4
- Claude Opus 4.1 vs Gemini 2.5 ProGoogle · ECI 145.3
- Claude Opus 4.1 vs Qwen3 MaxAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 142.4
- Claude Opus 4.1 vs DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32BDeepSeek · ECI 137.4
- Llama-3.2-3B vs Pixtral 12BMistral AI
- Llama-3.2-3B vs solar-miniUpstage
