Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs Llama 3.2 1B

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.7 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 64× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Google

56.7

Rank #23 Confirmed

Llama 3.2 1B Meta

20.1

Rank #354 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview 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 3.1 Pro Preview leads 71.8 to 7.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 95.6% for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview 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 / $12 for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview.
  • Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview 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 3.1 Pro PreviewLlama 3.2 1B
ProviderGoogleMeta
Noometry Index56.720.1
Released2026-02-192024-09-24
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M60K
Max output66K54K
Input $ / M tokens$2$0.027
Output $ / M tokens$12$0.20
Results tracked7122

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

Category by category

Coding Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 42.5 (#99), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Coding14841070
SWE-bench Verified75.6%—
DeepSWE11.7%—
LMArena WebDev1447—
SciCode58.9%—
GSO22.6%—
WeirdML72.1%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—8.2%
MirrorCode8.9%—
BigCodeBench Complete—11.3%
ALE-Bench1,161—
AlgoTune2.02—

Agentic & Tool Use Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 37.7 (#34), Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewLlama 3.2 1B
BALROG57%6.6%
Terminal-Bench80.2%—
APEX-Agents35.3%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—10.8%
τ²-bench Banking26%—
DeepResearch Bench47.8%—
PostTrainBench22%—
ExploitBench26.1%—
GBAEval0.8%—
GDP.pdf17%—
LMArena Search1211—
METR Time Horizons77%—
Vending-Bench 23,774—

Reasoning Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 71.7 (#12), Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewLlama 3.2 1B
Chess Puzzles55%0%
LMArena Hard Prompts14851044
Epoch Capabilities Index154.77101.99
ARC-AGI-277.1%—
SimpleBench79.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)97.4%—
ARC-AGI-198%—
CritPt17.7%—
EnigmaEval36.8%—
Thematic Generalization79.4%—
EBR-Bench14.3%—
Mystery Game Puzzles34%—
DTBench97.1%—
LMCA53.8%—
ForecastBench59—

Math Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 62.1 (#34), Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewLlama 3.2 1B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202595.6%0.6%
LMArena Math14851086
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)59.6%—
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions86.5%—
ProofBench26%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)36.9%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)16.7%—

Knowledge Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 71.8 (#3), Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewLlama 3.2 1B
GPQA Diamond94.4%23.9%
LMArena Expert14851007
Humanity's Last Exam46.4%—
SimpleQA Verified73.5%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.4%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 37.9 (#69), Llama 3.2 1B: —

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Vision1296—
Blueprint-Bench 226.5%—
Furniture Assembly26.7%—
LMArena Document1444—

Multilingual Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 57.0 (#12), Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Non-English1477973
LMArena Chinese1529959
LMArena German14911014
LMArena Russian1498941
LMArena French1487—
LMArena Japanese1493—
LMArena Korean1455—
LMArena Spanish1479—

Instruction Following Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 77.0 (#32), Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Instruction Following14661031

Long Context Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 47.4 (#18), Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Longer Query14831050
CL-bench20.8%—
CL-bench Life16.9%—

Writing & Preference Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 66.1 (#37), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310)

BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Text14811055
LMArena Creative Writing14821033
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1491200
LMArena Multi-Turn14881030
EQ-Bench 41142—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview better than Llama 3.2 1B?

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.7 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 64× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview 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 3.1 Pro Preview lists at $2 and $12.

Is Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview or Llama 3.2 1B better for coding?

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.5 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview does, with 1.05M tokens against 60K.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview and Llama 3.2 1B share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview has 71 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 1B has 22.

Related comparisons

Go deeper