Noometry

Model comparison

Llama 3.2 1B vs MiMo-V2-Flash

MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 2.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2-Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.2 1B Meta

20.1

Rank #354 Confirmed

MiMo-V2-Flash Xiaomi

41.3

Rank #138 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 1B scores higher in 0 categories and MiMo-V2-Flash in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiMo-V2-Flash leads 59.7 to 21.3.
  • Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper at $0.027 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.14 / $0.28 for MiMo-V2-Flash.
  • MiMo-V2-Flash accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 60K.

Side by side

Llama 3.2 1BMiMo-V2-Flash
ProviderMetaXiaomi
Noometry Index20.141.3
Released2024-09-242025-12-16
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window60K262K
Max output54K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.027$0.14
Output $ / M tokens$0.20$0.28
Results tracked2221

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

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2-Flash leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338), MiMo-V2-Flash: 36.1 (#211)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BMiMo-V2-Flash
LMArena Coding10701443
LMArena WebDev—1330
SciCode—25.9%
BigCodeBench Instruct8.2%—
BigCodeBench Complete11.3%—
ALE-Bench—737.95

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150), MiMo-V2-Flash: —

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

Reasoning MiMo-V2-Flash leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308), MiMo-V2-Flash: 24.9 (#157)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BMiMo-V2-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts10441420
CritPt—0%
Chess Puzzles0%—
Epoch Capabilities Index101.99—

Math MiMo-V2-Flash leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313), MiMo-V2-Flash: 38.3 (#139)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BMiMo-V2-Flash
LMArena Math10861396
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20250.6%—

Knowledge MiMo-V2-Flash leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312), MiMo-V2-Flash: 39.7 (#131)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BMiMo-V2-Flash
LMArena Expert10071425
GPQA Diamond23.9%—

Multilingual MiMo-V2-Flash leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292), MiMo-V2-Flash: 51.0 (#113)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BMiMo-V2-Flash
LMArena Non-English9731392
LMArena Chinese9591462
LMArena German10141395
LMArena Russian9411387
LMArena French—1429
LMArena Japanese—1325
LMArena Korean—1358
LMArena Spanish—1420

Instruction Following MiMo-V2-Flash leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290), MiMo-V2-Flash: 73.5 (#120)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BMiMo-V2-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following10311392

Long Context MiMo-V2-Flash leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274), MiMo-V2-Flash: 43.0 (#110)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BMiMo-V2-Flash
LMArena Longer Query10501409

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2-Flash leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310), MiMo-V2-Flash: 59.7 (#106)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BMiMo-V2-Flash
LMArena Text10551411
LMArena Creative Writing10331375
LMArena Multi-Turn10301404
EQ-Bench Creative Writing200—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.2 1B better than MiMo-V2-Flash?

MiMo-V2-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.3 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 2.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when MiMo-V2-Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 1B or MiMo-V2-Flash?

Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper. It lists at $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; MiMo-V2-Flash lists at $0.14 and $0.28.

Is Llama 3.2 1B or MiMo-V2-Flash better for coding?

MiMo-V2-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 36.1 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2-Flash does, with 262K tokens against 60K.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 1B and MiMo-V2-Flash share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 1B has 22 scored results on Noometry and MiMo-V2-Flash has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper