Model comparison

Llama 3.2 1B vs Qwen Plus

Qwen Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.1 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 8.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 12, 2026. 14 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.2 1B

Summary

They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 1B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen Plus in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen Plus leads 52.2 to 21.3.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 23.9% for Llama 3.2 1B and 48.1% for Qwen Plus.
Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper at $0.027 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $1.20 for Qwen Plus.
Qwen Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 60K.
Llama 3.2 1B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Llama 3.2 1B and Qwen Plus specifications
	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen Plus
Provider	Meta	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	20.1	37.1
Released	2024-09-24	2024-01-25
Weights	Open	Proprietary
Context window	60K	1M
Max output	54K	33K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.027	$0.40
Output $ / M tokens	$0.20	$1.20
Results tracked	22	20

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen Plus leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338), Qwen Plus: 38.9 (#167)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen Plus
LMArena Coding	1070	1328
BigCodeBench Instruct	8.2%	—
BigCodeBench Complete	11.3%	—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

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

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

Reasoning Qwen Plus leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308), Qwen Plus: 28.4 (#107)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen Plus
LMArena Hard Prompts	1044	1317
Kagi LLM Benchmark	—	63.3%
Chess Puzzles	0%	—
DTBench	—	81.1%
LMCA	—	24%
Epoch Capabilities Index	101.99	—

Math Qwen Plus leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313), Qwen Plus: 23.3 (#271)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen Plus
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	0.6%	17.8%
LMArena Math	1086	1326
MATH Level 5	—	65.3%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)	—	1.7%

Knowledge Qwen Plus leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312), Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#251)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen Plus
GPQA Diamond	23.9%	48.1%
LMArena Expert	1007	1328

Multilingual Qwen Plus leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292), Qwen Plus: 45.1 (#175)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen Plus
LMArena Non-English	973	1310
LMArena Chinese	959	1347
LMArena Russian	941	1323
LMArena German	1014	—
LMArena Japanese	—	1251

Instruction Following Qwen Plus leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290), Qwen Plus: 68.8 (#181)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen Plus
LMArena Instruction Following	1031	1303

Long Context Qwen Plus leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274), Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#158)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen Plus
LMArena Longer Query	1050	1324

Writing & Preference Qwen Plus leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310), Qwen Plus: 52.2 (#176)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen Plus
LMArena Text	1055	1326
LMArena Creative Writing	1033	1293
LMArena Multi-Turn	1030	1336
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	200	—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.2 1B better than Qwen Plus?

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

Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper. It lists at $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Qwen Plus lists at $0.40 and $1.20.

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

Qwen Plus scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.9 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen Plus does, with 1M tokens against 60K.

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

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 1B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Plus has 20.