Model comparison
Laguna M.1 vs Llama 3.2 1B
Laguna M.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.5 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Poolside
MetaSummary
- The widest gap is in coding, where Laguna M.1 leads 36.6 to 21.1.
- Laguna M.1 accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 60K.
Side by side
| Laguna M.1 | Llama 3.2 1B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Poolside | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 32.5 | 20.1 |
| Released | 2026-04-28 | 2024-09-24 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 262K | 60K |
| Max output | 33K | 54K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.027 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.20 |
| Results tracked | 3 | 22 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Laguna M.1 leads
Laguna M.1: 36.6 (#204), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338)
| Benchmark | Laguna M.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1349 | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 8.2% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1070 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 11.3% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Laguna M.1: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150)
| Benchmark | Laguna M.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 10.8% |
| BALROG | — | 6.6% |
Reasoning Laguna M.1 leads
Laguna M.1: 23.1 (#184), Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308)
| Benchmark | Laguna M.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1044 |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 15.6% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 101.99 |
Math Laguna M.1 leads
Laguna M.1: 21.1 (#283), Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313)
| Benchmark | Laguna M.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 0.6% |
| ProofBench | 0% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1086 |
Knowledge Not comparable
Laguna M.1: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312)
| Benchmark | Laguna M.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 23.9% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1007 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Laguna M.1: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292)
| Benchmark | Laguna M.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 973 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 959 |
| LMArena German | — | 1014 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 941 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Laguna M.1: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290)
| Benchmark | Laguna M.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1031 |
Long Context Not comparable
Laguna M.1: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274)
| Benchmark | Laguna M.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1050 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Laguna M.1: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310)
| Benchmark | Laguna M.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 Laguna M.1 better than Llama 3.2 1B?
Laguna M.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.5 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Laguna M.1 or Llama 3.2 1B better for coding?
Laguna M.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 36.6 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Laguna M.1 does, with 262K tokens against 60K.
How many benchmarks do Laguna M.1 and Llama 3.2 1B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Laguna M.1 has 3 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 1B has 22.