Model comparison

Grok Build 0.1 vs Llama 3.2 1B

Grok Build 0.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.8 to 19.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 18× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok Build 0.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 0 shared benchmarks.

Grok Build 0.1 xAI

35.8

Rank #214 Reported

Llama 3.2 1B

Summary

The widest gap is in coding, where Grok Build 0.1 leads 42.5 to 20.6.
Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper at $0.027 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1 / $2 for Grok Build 0.1.
Grok Build 0.1 accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 60K.
Llama 3.2 1B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok Build 0.1 and Llama 3.2 1B specifications
	Grok Build 0.1	Llama 3.2 1B
Provider	xAI	Meta
Noometry Index	35.8	19.9
Released	2026-04-16	2024-09-24
Weights	Proprietary	Open
Context window	256K	60K
Max output	256K	54K
Input $ / M tokens	$1	$0.027
Output $ / M tokens	$2	$0.20
Results tracked	3	22

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

Category by category

Coding Grok Build 0.1 leads

Grok Build 0.1: 42.5 (#90), Llama 3.2 1B: 20.6 (#333)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok Build 0.1	Llama 3.2 1B
SciCode	50.2%	—
BigCodeBench Instruct	—	8.2%
LMArena Coding	—	1071
BigCodeBench Complete	—	11.3%

Agentic & Tool Use Grok Build 0.1 leads

Grok Build 0.1: 22.5 (#122), Llama 3.2 1B: 14.5 (#142)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok Build 0.1	Llama 3.2 1B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	—	10.8%
BALROG	—	6.6%
GBAEval	2.4%	—

Reasoning Grok Build 0.1 leads

Grok Build 0.1: 31.3 (#73), Llama 3.2 1B: 15.6 (#304)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok Build 0.1	Llama 3.2 1B
CritPt	9.1%	—
Chess Puzzles	—	0%
LMArena Hard Prompts	—	1044
Epoch Capabilities Index	—	101.95

Math Not comparable

Grok Build 0.1: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 9.7 (#308)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok Build 0.1	Llama 3.2 1B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	—	0.6%
LMArena Math	—	1086

Knowledge Not comparable

Grok Build 0.1: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#307)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok Build 0.1	Llama 3.2 1B
GPQA Diamond	—	23.9%
LMArena Expert	—	1007

Multilingual Not comparable

Grok Build 0.1: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 23.9 (#287)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok Build 0.1	Llama 3.2 1B
LMArena Non-English	—	973
LMArena Chinese	—	958
LMArena German	—	1014
LMArena Russian	—	941

Instruction Following Not comparable

Grok Build 0.1: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 52.6 (#285)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok Build 0.1	Llama 3.2 1B
LMArena Instruction Following	—	1031

Long Context Not comparable

Grok Build 0.1: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#269)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok Build 0.1	Llama 3.2 1B
LMArena Longer Query	—	1050

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Grok Build 0.1: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 21.4 (#305)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Grok Build 0.1	Llama 3.2 1B
LMArena Text	—	1055
LMArena Creative Writing	—	1033
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	—	200
LMArena Multi-Turn	—	1030

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok Build 0.1 better than Llama 3.2 1B?

Which is cheaper, Grok Build 0.1 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; Grok Build 0.1 lists at $1 and $2.

Is Grok Build 0.1 or Llama 3.2 1B better for coding?

Grok Build 0.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.5 versus 20.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Grok Build 0.1 does, with 256K tokens against 60K.

How many benchmarks do Grok Build 0.1 and Llama 3.2 1B share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok Build 0.1 has 3 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 1B has 22.