Model comparison
Llama 3.2 1B vs Qwen2.5 32B Instruct
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.7 to 19.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen2.5 32B Instruct's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 6 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 1B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads 24.9 to 7.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Complete: 11.3% for Llama 3.2 1B and 52.3% for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
- Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper at $0.027 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 60K.
Side by side
| Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 19.9 | 29.7 |
| Released | 2024-09-24 | 2024-09 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 60K | 131K |
| Max output | 54K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.027 | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.20 | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 22 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 20.6 (#333), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.1 (#165)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 8.2% | 45% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 11.3% | 52.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1071 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Llama 3.2 1B: 14.5 (#142), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 10.8% | — |
| BALROG | 6.6% | — |
Reasoning Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 15.6 (#304), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 18.5 (#262)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 0% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 101.95 | 128.52 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1044 | — |
Math Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 9.7 (#308), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 15.3 (#289)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | 7.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1086 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 56.1% |
Knowledge Qwen2.5 32B Instruct leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#307), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#259)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 23.9% | 46.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1007 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Llama 3.2 1B: 23.9 (#287), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 973 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 958 | — |
| LMArena German | 1014 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 941 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Llama 3.2 1B: 52.6 (#285), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1031 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#269), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1050 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Llama 3.2 1B: 21.4 (#305), Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1055 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1033 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 200 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1030 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.2 1B better than Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.7 to 19.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen2.5 32B Instruct's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 1B or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct?
Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper. It lists at $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 32B Instruct lists at $0.70 and $2.80.
Is Llama 3.2 1B or Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better for coding?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.1 versus 20.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct does, with 131K tokens against 60K.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 1B and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct share?
6 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 1B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7.