Here’s a comparison of OpenAI’s GPT-4o Mini, Meta’s Llama 3.2 3B, and Llama 3.3 70B based on function calling, reasoning, and other benchmarks.

• GPT-4o Mini: Strong in function calling tasks, capable of producing structured outputs like JSON for API interactions. It is particularly effective in chaining calls and handling complex workflows.
• Llama 3.2 3B: Performs adequately in function calling but lacks the robustness of GPT-4o Mini. It is more suited for simpler tasks or retrieval-based scenarios.
• Llama 3.3 70B: Excels in function calling with advanced capabilities, including seamless integration with external systems and tools. It outputs structured data effectively and supports multilingual use cases.

• GPT-4o Mini: Achieves strong results in reasoning tasks such as MMLU (82%) and MATH (70.2%), demonstrating advanced problem-solving capabilities.
• Llama 3.2 3B: Performs well in specific reasoning benchmarks like GSM8K (77.7%) but is generally weaker than GPT-4o Mini in complex reasoning.
• Llama 3.3 70B: Outperforms both models on general knowledge and reasoning tasks with an MMLU score of 86% and a MATH score of 77%. It also demonstrates strong performance in instruction-following tasks (IFEval: 92.1) and multilingual reasoning (MGSM: 91.1).

1. Model Size and Parameters: GPT-4o Mini is lightweight compared to Llama models. Llama 3.2 has fewer parameters (3B), while Llama 3.3 is a large-scale model with 70B parameters, offering greater depth in reasoning and task handling.
2. Context Window: All three models support a large context window of up to 128,000 tokens, suitable for long-context tasks.
3. Open Source vs Proprietary: GPT-4o Mini is proprietary, whereas both Llama models are open-source, with Llama 3.3 offering greater flexibility for customization.
4. Cost Efficiency: GPT-4o Mini costs $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens. Llama models are generally more cost-effective due to their open-source nature but require infrastructure for deployment.

• GPT-4o Mini: Ideal for applications requiring high accuracy in reasoning, such as coding assistants, customer support bots, or complex workflows.
• Llama 3.2 3B: Best for lightweight use cases where computational efficiency is critical.
• Llama 3.3 70B: Suited for advanced applications requiring multilingual support, deep reasoning, or extensive instruction-following capabilities.

While GPT-4o Mini performs well across the board, especially in cost efficiency and function calling, Llama 3.3 70B surpasses it in benchmarks like MMLU and instruction-following tasks due to its larger scale and advanced architecture. However, Llama 3.2 3B lags behind both models in most aspects except for specific reasoning tasks where it remains competitive.