Model comparison
Command R+ vs Llama 3.2 1B
Command R+ is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.4 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 62× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Command R+'s lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
Cohere
MetaSummary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Command R+ scores higher in 7 categories and Llama 3.2 1B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Command R+ leads 36.4 to 7.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Complete: 41.9% for Command R+ and 11.3% for Llama 3.2 1B.
- Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper at $0.027 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $2.50 / $10 for Command R+.
- Command R+ accepts more context: 128K tokens versus 60K.
Side by side
| Command R+ | Llama 3.2 1B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Cohere | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 32.4 | 20.1 |
| Released | 2024-08-30 | 2024-09-24 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 60K |
| Max output | 4K | 54K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $0.027 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.20 |
| Results tracked | 34 | 22 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Command R+ leads
Command R+: 29.1 (#309), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 33.8% | 8.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1187 | 1070 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 41.9% | 11.3% |
| LiveBench Coding | 19.1% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 56.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 63.5% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Command R+: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 10.8% |
| BALROG | — | 6.6% |
Reasoning Llama 3.2 1B leads
Command R+: 9.2 (#344), Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1186 | 1044 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.34 | 101.99 |
| SimpleBench | 17.4% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 24.8% | — |
| DTBench | 54.9% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 38.1% | — |
| LMCA | 5% | — |
| LiveBench | 31.8% | — |
Math Command R+ leads
Command R+: 28.9 (#242), Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1188 | 1086 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 0.6% |
| LiveBench Math | 21.3% | — |
Knowledge Command R+ leads
Command R+: 36.4 (#169), Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1174 | 1007 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 23.9% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 6.9% | — |
| MMLU | 69.4% | — |
Multilingual Command R+ leads
Command R+: 38.6 (#227), Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1216 | 973 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1226 | 959 |
| LMArena German | 1216 | 1014 |
| LMArena Russian | 1227 | 941 |
| LMArena French | 1209 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1166 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1138 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1189 | — |
Instruction Following Command R+ leads
Command R+: 60.0 (#254), Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1197 | 1031 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 57.6% | — |
Long Context Command R+ leads
Command R+: 37.3 (#219), Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1230 | 1050 |
Writing & Preference Command R+ leads
Command R+: 43.5 (#228), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310)
| Benchmark | Command R+ | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1229 | 1055 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1235 | 1033 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1213 | 1030 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 200 |
| LiveBench Language | 29.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Command R+ better than Llama 3.2 1B?
Command R+ is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.4 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 62× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Command R+'s lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Command R+ 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; Command R+ lists at $2.50 and $10.
Is Command R+ or Llama 3.2 1B better for coding?
Command R+ scores higher on coding benchmarks: 29.1 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Command R+ does, with 128K tokens against 60K.
How many benchmarks do Command R+ and Llama 3.2 1B share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Command R+ has 34 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 1B has 22.