Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite vs Llama 3.2 1B

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.8 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite Google

37.8

Rank #194 Confirmed

Llama 3.2 1B Meta

20.1

Rank #354 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite scores higher in 8 categories and Llama 3.2 1B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite leads 51.7 to 21.3.
  • Llama 3.2 1B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 2.0 Flash-LiteLlama 3.2 1B
ProviderGoogleMeta
Noometry Index37.820.1
Released2025-02-052024-09-24
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—60K
Max output—54K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.027
Output $ / M tokens—$0.20
Results tracked3222

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

Category by category

Coding Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 37.9 (#185), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Coding13221070
BigCodeBench Instruct—8.2%
LiveBench Coding47.1%—
BigCodeBench Complete—11.3%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteLlama 3.2 1B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—10.8%
BALROG—6.6%

Reasoning Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 22.0 (#210), Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Hard Prompts13241044
Chess Puzzles—0%
LiveBench Reasoning50.1%—
DTBench52.5%—
LiveBench Data Analysis65.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index—101.99
ForecastBench57.1—
LiveBench54.3%—

Math Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 34.1 (#196), Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Math13091086
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—0.6%
Omni-MATH37.4%—
LiveBench Math58.1%—

Knowledge Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 35.0 (#189), Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Expert13051007
GPQA Diamond—23.9%
MMLU-Pro72%—
GPQA (HELM)50%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 31.2 (#109), Llama 3.2 1B: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Vision1100—

Multilingual Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 46.0 (#161), Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Non-English1323973
LMArena Chinese1339959
LMArena German13061014
LMArena Russian1328941
LMArena French1347—
LMArena Japanese1301—
LMArena Korean1325—
LMArena Spanish1313—

Instruction Following Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 70.4 (#163), Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Instruction Following13051031
LiveBench Instruction Following78.3%—
IFEval82.4%—

Long Context Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 40.1 (#160), Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Longer Query13201050

Writing & Preference Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite leads

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite: 51.7 (#177), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310)

BenchmarkGemini 2.0 Flash-LiteLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Text13301055
LMArena Creative Writing13191033
LMArena Multi-Turn13071030
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—200
WildBench79%—
LiveBench Language34.3%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite better than Llama 3.2 1B?

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.8 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.

Is Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite or Llama 3.2 1B better for coding?

Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.9 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite and Llama 3.2 1B share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite has 32 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 1B has 22.

Related comparisons

Go deeper