Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Llama 3.2 1B
Claude Sonnet 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.6 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 57× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Sonnet 5 scores higher in 9 categories and Llama 3.2 1B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Sonnet 5 leads 66.2 to 10.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 94.7% for Claude Sonnet 5 and 0.6% for Llama 3.2 1B.
- Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper at $0.027 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $10 for Claude Sonnet 5.
- Claude Sonnet 5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 60K.
- Llama 3.2 1B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Sonnet 5 | Llama 3.2 1B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 54.6 | 20.1 |
| Released | 2026-06-29 | 2024-09-24 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 60K |
| Max output | 128K | 54K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $0.027 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.20 |
| Results tracked | 51 | 22 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5: 55.5 (#26), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1483 | 1070 |
| DeepSWE | 53.8% | — |
| FrontierCode | 42.7% | — |
| CursorBench | 34.1% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1541 | — |
| SciCode | 54.3% | — |
| GSO | 37.3% | — |
| WeirdML | 68.8% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 8.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 11.3% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,463 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5: 42.8 (#18), Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 54.5% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 10.8% |
| BALROG | — | 6.6% |
| GBAEval | 65.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1194 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 6,378 | — |
Reasoning Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5: 49.1 (#39), Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 35% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1461 | 1044 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.21 | 101.99 |
| SimpleBench | 60.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 75.1% | — |
| CritPt | 16.9% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 35% | — |
| DTBench | 92.5% | — |
| LMCA | 50% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 60% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.14 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.1 | — |
Math Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5: 66.2 (#27), Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 94.7% | 0.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1467 | 1086 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 65.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 29.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 77% | — |
Knowledge Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5: 55.6 (#47), Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.5% | 23.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1490 | 1007 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 33.7% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5: 42.4 (#31), Llama 3.2 1B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1274 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 24.9% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1466 | — |
Multilingual Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5: 53.8 (#55), Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1431 | 973 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1477 | 959 |
| LMArena German | 1440 | 1014 |
| LMArena Russian | 1451 | 941 |
| LMArena French | 1460 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1422 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1411 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1437 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5: 76.3 (#41), Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1452 | 1031 |
Long Context Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5: 44.8 (#55), Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1463 | 1050 |
Writing & Preference Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5: 69.2 (#25), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1442 | 1055 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1416 | 1033 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1794 | 200 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1454 | 1030 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1236 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Sonnet 5 better than Llama 3.2 1B?
Claude Sonnet 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.6 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 57× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 5 or Llama 3.2 1B?
Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper. It lists at $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Claude Sonnet 5 lists at $2 and $10.
Is Claude Sonnet 5 or Llama 3.2 1B better for coding?
Claude Sonnet 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.5 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Sonnet 5 does, with 1M tokens against 60K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Sonnet 5 and Llama 3.2 1B share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Sonnet 5 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 1B has 22.