Noometry

Model comparison

Llama 3.2 1B vs Qwen Max

Qwen Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 34.7 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 40× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.2 1B Meta

20.1

Rank #354 Confirmed

Qwen Max Alibaba (Qwen)

34.7

Rank #230 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 1B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen Max in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen Max leads 47.8 to 21.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 23.9% for Llama 3.2 1B and 56.1% for Qwen Max.
  • Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper at $0.027 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1.60 / $6.40 for Qwen Max.
  • Llama 3.2 1B accepts more context: 60K tokens versus 33K.
  • Llama 3.2 1B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Llama 3.2 1BQwen Max
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index20.134.7
Released2024-09-242024-04-03
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window60K33K
Max output54K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.027$1.60
Output $ / M tokens$0.20$6.40
Results tracked2223

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen Max leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338), Qwen Max: 30.7 (#292)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BQwen Max
LMArena Coding10701288
Aider Polyglot—21.8%
BigCodeBench Instruct8.2%—
BigCodeBench Complete11.3%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150), Qwen Max: —

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BQwen Max
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard10.8%—
BALROG6.6%—

Reasoning Qwen Max leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308), Qwen Max: 25.1 (#151)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BQwen Max
LMArena Hard Prompts10441269
Chess Puzzles0%—
Epoch Capabilities Index101.99—

Math Qwen Max leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313), Qwen Max: 22.3 (#276)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BQwen Max
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20250.6%16.1%
LMArena Math10861275
MATH Level 5—67.2%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—1%

Knowledge Qwen Max leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312), Qwen Max: 30.3 (#228)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BQwen Max
GPQA Diamond23.9%56.1%
LMArena Expert10071248

Multilingual Qwen Max leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292), Qwen Max: 41.8 (#202)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BQwen Max
LMArena Non-English9731263
LMArena Chinese9591254
LMArena German10141254
LMArena Russian9411274
LMArena French—1330
LMArena Japanese—1205
LMArena Korean—1142
LMArena Spanish—1290

Instruction Following Qwen Max leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290), Qwen Max: 66.5 (#208)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BQwen Max
LMArena Instruction Following10311262

Long Context Qwen Max leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274), Qwen Max: 39.4 (#180)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BQwen Max
LMArena Longer Query10501288
Fiction.LiveBench—66.7%

Writing & Preference Qwen Max leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310), Qwen Max: 47.8 (#205)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BQwen Max
LMArena Text10551282
LMArena Creative Writing10331248
LMArena Multi-Turn10301277
EQ-Bench Creative Writing200—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.2 1B better than Qwen Max?

Qwen Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 34.7 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 40× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen Max's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 1B or Qwen Max?

Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper. It lists at $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Qwen Max lists at $1.60 and $6.40.

Is Llama 3.2 1B or Qwen Max better for coding?

Qwen Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 30.7 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Llama 3.2 1B does, with 60K tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 1B and Qwen Max share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 1B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Max has 23.

Related comparisons

Go deeper