Model comparison

Llama 3.2 1B vs Mistral Medium 3.1

Mistral Medium 3.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.9 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 11× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Mistral Medium 3.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 1 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.2 1B

Summary

They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Llama 3.2 1B scores higher in 1 category and Mistral Medium 3.1 in 1 category; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Mistral Medium 3.1 leads 55.5 to 21.3.
Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper at $0.027 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $2 for Mistral Medium 3.1.
Mistral Medium 3.1 accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 60K.
Llama 3.2 1B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Llama 3.2 1B and Mistral Medium 3.1 specifications
	Llama 3.2 1B	Mistral Medium 3.1
Provider	Meta	Mistral AI
Noometry Index	20.1	31.9
Released	2024-09-24	—
Weights	Open	Proprietary
Context window	60K	131K
Max output	54K	105K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.027	$0.40
Output $ / M tokens	$0.20	$2
Results tracked	22	3

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Mistral Medium 3.1
BigCodeBench Instruct	8.2%	—
LMArena Coding	1070	—
BigCodeBench Complete	11.3%	—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Mistral Medium 3.1
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	10.8%	—
BALROG	6.6%	—

Reasoning Llama 3.2 1B leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308), Mistral Medium 3.1: 10.6 (#341)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Mistral Medium 3.1
NYT Connections (extended)	—	6.5%
Chess Puzzles	0%	—
Thematic Generalization	—	20.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1044	—
Epoch Capabilities Index	101.99	—

Math Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Mistral Medium 3.1
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	0.6%	—
LMArena Math	1086	—

Knowledge Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Mistral Medium 3.1
GPQA Diamond	23.9%	—
LMArena Expert	1007	—

Multilingual Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Mistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Non-English	973	—
LMArena Chinese	959	—
LMArena German	1014	—
LMArena Russian	941	—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Mistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Instruction Following	1031	—

Long Context Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274), Mistral Medium 3.1: —

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Mistral Medium 3.1
LMArena Longer Query	1050	—

Writing & Preference Mistral Medium 3.1 leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310), Mistral Medium 3.1: 55.5 (#145)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Mistral Medium 3.1
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	200	1476
LMArena Text	1055	—
LMArena Creative Writing	1033	—
LMArena Multi-Turn	1030	—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.2 1B better than Mistral Medium 3.1?

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 1B or Mistral Medium 3.1?

Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper. It lists at $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Mistral Medium 3.1 lists at $0.40 and $2.

Which has the bigger context window?

Mistral Medium 3.1 does, with 131K tokens against 60K.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 1B and Mistral Medium 3.1 share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Llama 3.2 1B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Mistral Medium 3.1 has 3.