Noometry

Model comparison

Llama 3.2 1B vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.7 to 19.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 7.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2.6-Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.2 1B Meta

19.9

Rank #349 Confirmed

MiMo-V2.6-Pro Xiaomi

46.7

Rank #55 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 1B scores higher in 0 categories and MiMo-V2.6-Pro in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads 66.9 to 21.4.
  • Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper at $0.027 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.43 / $0.87 for MiMo-V2.6-Pro.
  • MiMo-V2.6-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 60K.

Side by side

Llama 3.2 1BMiMo-V2.6-Pro
ProviderMetaXiaomi
Noometry Index19.946.7
Released2024-09-242026-09-22
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window60K1.05M
Max output54K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.027$0.43
Output $ / M tokens$0.20$0.87
Results tracked2214

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

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 20.6 (#333), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 53.2 (#27)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BMiMo-V2.6-Pro
LMArena Coding10711538
LMArena WebDev—1618
BigCodeBench Instruct8.2%—
BigCodeBench Complete11.3%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 14.5 (#142), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: —

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BMiMo-V2.6-Pro
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard10.8%—
BALROG6.6%—

Reasoning MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 15.6 (#304), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 30.4 (#76)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BMiMo-V2.6-Pro
LMArena Hard Prompts10441511
Chess Puzzles0%—
Epoch Capabilities Index101.95—

Math MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 9.7 (#308), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 37.9 (#91)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BMiMo-V2.6-Pro
LMArena Math10861497
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20250.6%—

Knowledge MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#307), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 43.0 (#85)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BMiMo-V2.6-Pro
LMArena Expert10071548
GPQA Diamond23.9%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: —, MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 40.2 (#40)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BMiMo-V2.6-Pro
LMArena Vision—1265

Multilingual MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 23.9 (#287), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 57.0 (#15)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BMiMo-V2.6-Pro
LMArena Non-English9731474
LMArena Chinese9581532
LMArena Russian9411481
LMArena German1014—

Instruction Following MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 52.6 (#285), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 78.2 (#10)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BMiMo-V2.6-Pro
LMArena Instruction Following10311490

Long Context MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#269), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 46.0 (#26)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BMiMo-V2.6-Pro
LMArena Longer Query10501500

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2.6-Pro leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 21.4 (#305), MiMo-V2.6-Pro: 66.9 (#32)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BMiMo-V2.6-Pro
LMArena Text10551491
LMArena Creative Writing10331465
LMArena Multi-Turn10301463
EQ-Bench Creative Writing200—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.2 1B better than MiMo-V2.6-Pro?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.7 to 19.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 7.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2.6-Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 1B or MiMo-V2.6-Pro?

Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper. It lists at $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2.6-Pro lists at $0.43 and $0.87.

Is Llama 3.2 1B or MiMo-V2.6-Pro better for coding?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.2 versus 20.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2.6-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 60K.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 1B and MiMo-V2.6-Pro share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 1B has 22 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2.6-Pro has 14.

Related comparisons

Go deeper