Model comparison

Llama 3.2 1B vs Pixtral Large

Pixtral Large is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.7 to 19.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 43× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Pixtral Large'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 0 categories and Pixtral Large in 2 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Pixtral Large leads 32.9 to 21.4.
Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper at $0.027 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Pixtral Large.
Pixtral Large accepts more context: 128K tokens versus 60K.

Side by side

Llama 3.2 1B and Pixtral Large specifications
	Llama 3.2 1B	Pixtral Large
Provider	Meta	Mistral AI
Noometry Index	19.9	31.7
Released	2024-09-24	2024-11-01
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	60K	128K
Max output	54K	128K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.027	$2
Output $ / M tokens	$0.20	$6
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: 20.6 (#333), Pixtral Large: —

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Pixtral Large
BigCodeBench Instruct	8.2%	—
LMArena Coding	1071	—
BigCodeBench Complete	11.3%	—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 14.5 (#142), Pixtral Large: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Pixtral Large
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	10.8%	—
BALROG	6.6%	—

Reasoning Pixtral Large leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 15.6 (#304), Pixtral Large: 20.9 (#208)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Pixtral Large
Chess Puzzles	0%	—
EnigmaEval	—	0.8%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1044	—
Epoch Capabilities Index	101.95	—

Math Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 9.7 (#308), Pixtral Large: —

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Pixtral Large
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	0.6%	—
LMArena Math	1086	—

Knowledge Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#307), Pixtral Large: —

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Pixtral Large
GPQA Diamond	23.9%	—
LMArena Expert	1007	—

Multimodal Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: —, Pixtral Large: 30.0 (#105)

Multimodal benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Pixtral Large
LMArena Vision	—	1089

Multilingual Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 23.9 (#287), Pixtral Large: —

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Pixtral Large
LMArena Non-English	973	—
LMArena Chinese	958	—
LMArena German	1014	—
LMArena Russian	941	—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 52.6 (#285), Pixtral Large: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Pixtral Large
LMArena Instruction Following	1031	—

Long Context Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#269), Pixtral Large: —

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Pixtral Large
LMArena Longer Query	1050	—

Writing & Preference Pixtral Large leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 21.4 (#305), Pixtral Large: 32.9 (#273)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Pixtral Large
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	200	988
LMArena Text	1055	—
LMArena Creative Writing	1033	—
LMArena Multi-Turn	1030	—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.2 1B better than Pixtral Large?

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 1B or Pixtral Large?

Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper. It lists at $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Pixtral Large lists at $2 and $6.

Which has the bigger context window?

Pixtral Large does, with 128K tokens against 60K.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 1B and Pixtral Large share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Llama 3.2 1B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Pixtral Large has 3.