Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Llama 3.2 1B

Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 49× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 2.5 Pro Google

45.0

Rank #75 Confirmed

Llama 3.2 1B Meta

20.1

Rank #354 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro 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 knowledge, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 56.0 to 7.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 84.7% for Gemini 2.5 Pro 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 $1.25 / $10 for Gemini 2.5 Pro.
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 60K.
  • Llama 3.2 1B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 2.5 ProLlama 3.2 1B
ProviderGoogleMeta
Noometry Index45.020.1
Released2025-03-252024-09-24
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M60K
Max output66K54K
Input $ / M tokens$1.25$0.027
Output $ / M tokens$10$0.20
Results tracked7822

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

Category by category

Coding Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 42.4 (#101), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Coding14521070
SWE-bench Verified57.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)53.6%—
Aider Polyglot83.1%—
LMArena WebDev1227—
SciCode42.8%—
GSO3.9%—
WeirdML54%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—8.2%
LiveBench Coding85.9%—
BigCodeBench Complete—11.3%
CadEval64%—
ALE-Bench785.52—
AlgoTune1.51—

Agentic & Tool Use Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 29.2 (#88), Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProLlama 3.2 1B
BALROG43.3%6.6%
Terminal-Bench32.6%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—10.8%
GDPval23.3%—
Remote Labor Index0.8%—
TheAgentCompany30.3%—
τ²-bench Banking13.7%—
DeepResearch Bench42.8%—
LMArena Search1142—
METR Time Horizons55.4%—
Vending-Bench 2573.64—

Reasoning Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 28.8 (#99), Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProLlama 3.2 1B
Chess Puzzles20%0%
LMArena Hard Prompts14551044
Epoch Capabilities Index145.32101.99
ARC-AGI-24.9%—
SimpleBench62.4%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark70.3%—
ARC-AGI-141%—
CritPt2%—
EnigmaEval5.6%—
LiveBench Reasoning89.8%—
DTBench82.4%—
LiveBench Data Analysis79.9%—
LMCA34.8%—
ForecastBench61.3—
LiveBench82.3%—

Math Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 32.5 (#213), Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProLlama 3.2 1B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202584.7%0.6%
LMArena Math14501086
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)24.6%—
FrontierMath Tier 40%—
Omni-MATH41.6%—
LiveBench Math90.2%—
MATH Level 595.9%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)14.1%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%—

Knowledge Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 56.0 (#46), Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProLlama 3.2 1B
GPQA Diamond85.3%23.9%
LMArena Expert14521007
Humanity's Last Exam21.6%—
MMLU-Pro86.3%—
Confabulations10.6%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate7%—
GPQA (HELM)74.9%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 45.2 (#18), Llama 3.2 1B: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Vision1263—
GeoBench86%—
VPCT48%—
LMArena Document1421—
SpatialViz-Bench44.7%—

Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.3 (#31), Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Non-English1451973
LMArena Chinese1507959
LMArena German14871014
LMArena Russian1461941
LMArena French1472—
LMArena Japanese1461—
LMArena Korean1434—
LMArena Spanish1473—

Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.0 (#75), Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Instruction Following14371031
LiveBench Instruction Following80.6%—
IFEval84%—

Long Context Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.8 (#5), Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Longer Query14491050
Fiction.LiveBench91.7%—

Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.7 (#62), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Text14581055
LMArena Creative Writing14541033
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1421200
LMArena Multi-Turn14531030
Short-Story Creative Writing83.8%—
WildBench85.7%—
LiveBench Language67.8%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 2.5 Pro better than Llama 3.2 1B?

Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 49× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Pro 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; Gemini 2.5 Pro lists at $1.25 and $10.

Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or Llama 3.2 1B better for coding?

Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 60K.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Pro and Llama 3.2 1B share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 1B has 22.

Related comparisons

Go deeper