Model comparison

DeepSeek Coder 33B vs Llama 3.2 1B

Llama 3.2 1B has enough public results to be ranked (#354); DeepSeek Coder 33B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

DeepSeek Coder 33B DeepSeek

38.9

Unranked Sparse

Llama 3.2 1B Meta

20.1

Rank #354 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek Coder 33B scores higher in 1 category and Llama 3.2 1B in 0 categories; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where DeepSeek Coder 33B leads 38.0 to 21.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Complete: 51.1% for DeepSeek Coder 33B and 11.3% for Llama 3.2 1B.

Side by side

DeepSeek Coder 33B and Llama 3.2 1B specifications
DeepSeek Coder 33BLlama 3.2 1B
ProviderDeepSeekMeta
Noometry Index38.920.1
Released2023-11-022024-09-24
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—60K
Max output—54K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.027
Output $ / M tokens—$0.20
Results tracked922

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding DeepSeek Coder 33B leads

DeepSeek Coder 33B: 38.0 (#184), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek Coder 33BLlama 3.2 1B
BigCodeBench Instruct42%8.2%
BigCodeBench Complete51.1%11.3%
LMArena Coding—1070
HumanEval+75%—
MBPP+70.1%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

DeepSeek Coder 33B: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek Coder 33BLlama 3.2 1B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—10.8%
BALROG—6.6%

Reasoning Not comparable

DeepSeek Coder 33B: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek Coder 33BLlama 3.2 1B
Epoch Capabilities Index96.32101.99
Chess Puzzles—0%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1044
WinoGrande62%—

Math Not comparable

DeepSeek Coder 33B: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek Coder 33BLlama 3.2 1B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—0.6%
LMArena Math—1086
GSM8K35.4%—

Knowledge Not comparable

DeepSeek Coder 33B: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek Coder 33BLlama 3.2 1B
GPQA Diamond—23.9%
LMArena Expert—1007
ARC (AI2) Challenge42.2%—
MMLU39.4%—

Multilingual Not comparable

DeepSeek Coder 33B: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek Coder 33BLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Non-English—973
LMArena Chinese—959
LMArena German—1014
LMArena Russian—941

Instruction Following Not comparable

DeepSeek Coder 33B: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek Coder 33BLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Instruction Following—1031

Long Context Not comparable

DeepSeek Coder 33B: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek Coder 33BLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Longer Query—1050

Writing & Preference Not comparable

DeepSeek Coder 33B: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkDeepSeek Coder 33BLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Text—1055
LMArena Creative Writing—1033
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—200
LMArena Multi-Turn—1030

Frequently asked questions

Is DeepSeek Coder 33B better than Llama 3.2 1B?

Llama 3.2 1B has enough public results to be ranked (#354); DeepSeek Coder 33B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Is DeepSeek Coder 33B or Llama 3.2 1B better for coding?

DeepSeek Coder 33B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.0 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do DeepSeek Coder 33B and Llama 3.2 1B share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek Coder 33B has 9 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 1B has 22.

Related comparisons

Go deeper