Noometry

Model comparison

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo vs Llama 3.2 1B

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.4 to 19.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo Moonshot AI

45.4

Rank #63 Confirmed

Llama 3.2 1B Meta

19.9

Rank #349 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo 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 knowledge, where Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads 50.9 to 7.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 83.1% for Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo and 0.6% for Llama 3.2 1B.

Side by side

Kimi K2 Thinking TurboLlama 3.2 1B
ProviderMoonshot AIMeta
Noometry Index45.419.9
Released2025-11-062024-09-24
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—60K
Max output—54K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.027
Output $ / M tokens—$0.20
Results tracked2122

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

Category by category

Coding Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 38.1 (#166), Llama 3.2 1B: 20.6 (#333)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Coding14541071
LMArena WebDev1322—
BigCodeBench Instruct—8.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—11.3%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 14.5 (#142)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboLlama 3.2 1B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—10.8%
BALROG—6.6%

Reasoning Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 31.4 (#72), Llama 3.2 1B: 15.6 (#304)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboLlama 3.2 1B
Chess Puzzles20%0%
LMArena Hard Prompts14281044
Epoch Capabilities Index—101.95

Math Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 45.5 (#62), Llama 3.2 1B: 9.7 (#308)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboLlama 3.2 1B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202583.1%0.6%
LMArena Math14291086

Knowledge Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 50.9 (#64), Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#307)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboLlama 3.2 1B
GPQA Diamond84.2%23.9%
LMArena Expert14391007

Multilingual Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 51.6 (#104), Llama 3.2 1B: 23.9 (#287)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Non-English1398973
LMArena Chinese1457958
LMArena German13901014
LMArena Russian1390941
LMArena French1425—
LMArena Japanese1356—
LMArena Korean1329—
LMArena Spanish1407—

Instruction Following Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 74.2 (#103), Llama 3.2 1B: 52.6 (#285)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Instruction Following14031031

Long Context Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 43.2 (#99), Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#269)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Longer Query14151050

Writing & Preference Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo leads

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo: 60.2 (#99), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.4 (#305)

BenchmarkKimi K2 Thinking TurboLlama 3.2 1B
LMArena Text14151055
LMArena Creative Writing13731033
LMArena Multi-Turn14141030
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—200

Frequently asked questions

Is Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo better than Llama 3.2 1B?

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.4 to 19.9 on the Noometry Index.

Is Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo or Llama 3.2 1B better for coding?

Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.1 versus 20.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo and Llama 3.2 1B share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Kimi K2 Thinking Turbo has 21 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 1B has 22.

Related comparisons

Go deeper