Model comparison
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite vs Llama 3.2 1B
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.5 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 12× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
Google
MetaSummary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite 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 writing & preference, where Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite leads 64.2 to 21.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 71.1% for Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite 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 $0.30 / $2.50 for Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite.
- Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite 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 3.5 Flash Lite | Llama 3.2 1B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | |
| Noometry Index | 41.5 | 20.1 |
| Released | 2026-07-21 | 2024-09-24 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 60K |
| Max output | 66K | 54K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.027 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.50 | $0.20 |
| Results tracked | 39 | 22 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 42.4 (#104), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1453 | 1070 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1440 | — |
| SciCode | 41.3% | — |
| WeirdML | 39% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 8.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 11.3% |
| ALE-Bench | 765.27 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 25.7 (#107), Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 29.3% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 10.8% |
| BALROG | — | 6.6% |
| GDP.pdf | 10% | — |
Reasoning Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 27.8 (#114), Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 22% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1441 | 1044 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.13 | 101.99 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 10.3% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 60.4% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 53.5% | — |
| CritPt | 0% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 19% | — |
| DTBench | 83.5% | — |
| LMCA | 37.6% | — |
Math Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 25.9 (#264), Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 71.1% | 0.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1433 | 1086 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 26% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 0% | — |
| ProofBench | 13% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 50.1 (#72), Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 83.3% | 23.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1435 | 1007 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 41.1 (#40), Llama 3.2 1B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1268 | — |
Multilingual Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 53.5 (#63), Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1427 | 973 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1469 | 959 |
| LMArena German | 1454 | 1014 |
| LMArena Russian | 1443 | 941 |
| LMArena French | 1451 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1427 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1407 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1442 | — |
Instruction Following Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 74.8 (#85), Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1420 | 1031 |
Long Context Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 43.9 (#84), Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1435 | 1050 |
Writing & Preference Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite leads
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: 64.2 (#57), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310)
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1435 | 1055 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1420 | 1033 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1559 | 200 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1445 | 1030 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite better than Llama 3.2 1B?
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.5 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 12× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite 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 3.5 Flash Lite lists at $0.30 and $2.50.
Is Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite or Llama 3.2 1B better for coding?
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite does, with 1.05M tokens against 60K.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite and Llama 3.2 1B share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite has 39 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 1B has 22.