Model comparison

Llama 3.2 1B vs Mistral Nemo

Mistral Nemo is the stronger model overall, scoring 26.4 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 2.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Mistral Nemo's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 11, 2026. 5 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.2 1B

Summary

They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 1B scores higher in 0 categories and Mistral Nemo in 5 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in math, where Mistral Nemo leads 25.5 to 10.4.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard: 10.8% for Llama 3.2 1B and 27.6% for Mistral Nemo.
Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper at $0.027 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.15 / $0.15 for Mistral Nemo.
Mistral Nemo accepts more context: 128K tokens versus 60K.

Side by side

Llama 3.2 1B and Mistral Nemo specifications
	Llama 3.2 1B	Mistral Nemo
Provider	Meta	Mistral AI
Noometry Index	20.1	26.4
Released	2024-09-24	2024-07-01
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	60K	128K
Max output	54K	128K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.027	$0.15
Output $ / M tokens	$0.20	$0.15
Results tracked	22	10

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 Nemo: —

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

Agentic & Tool Use Mistral Nemo leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150), Mistral Nemo: 23.5 (#125)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Mistral Nemo
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	10.8%	27.6%
BALROG	6.6%	17.6%

Reasoning Mistral Nemo leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308), Mistral Nemo: 20.7 (#232)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Mistral Nemo
Epoch Capabilities Index	101.99	118.68
Chess Puzzles	0%	—
LMArena Hard Prompts	1044	—
DTBench	—	48.6%
PIQA	—	83.5%

Math Mistral Nemo leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313), Mistral Nemo: 25.5 (#268)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Mistral Nemo
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	0.6%	—
LMArena Math	1086	—
MATH Level 5	—	10.8%
GSM8K	—	84.2%

Knowledge Mistral Nemo leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312), Mistral Nemo: 12.3 (#298)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Mistral Nemo
GPQA Diamond	23.9%	29.9%
LMArena Expert	1007	—
BoolQ	—	82.5%

Multilingual Not comparable

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

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Mistral Nemo
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 Nemo: —

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

Long Context Not comparable

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

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

Writing & Preference Mistral Nemo leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310), Mistral Nemo: 28.5 (#296)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Mistral Nemo
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	200	881
LMArena Text	1055	—
LMArena Creative Writing	1033	—
LMArena Multi-Turn	1030	—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.2 1B better than Mistral Nemo?

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 1B or Mistral Nemo?

Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper. It lists at $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Mistral Nemo lists at $0.15 and $0.15.

Which has the bigger context window?

Mistral Nemo does, with 128K tokens against 60K.

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

5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 1B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Mistral Nemo has 10.