Model comparison

Llama 3.2 1B vs Qwen3 32B

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 18 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.2 1B

Summary

They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 1B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3 32B in 9 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3 32B leads 40.0 to 7.2.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 0.6% for Llama 3.2 1B and 66.9% for Qwen3 32B.
Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper at $0.027 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 32B.
Qwen3 32B accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 60K.

Side by side

Llama 3.2 1B and Qwen3 32B specifications
	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen3 32B
Provider	Meta	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	20.1	39.2
Released	2024-09-24	2025-04
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	60K	131K
Max output	54K	16K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.027	$0.70
Output $ / M tokens	$0.20	$2.80
Results tracked	22	26

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3 32B leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen3 32B
LMArena Coding	1070	1358
Aider Polyglot	—	40%
SciCode	—	35.4%
BigCodeBench Instruct	8.2%	—
BigCodeBench Complete	11.3%	—

Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3 32B leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150), Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen3 32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	10.8%	48.7%
BALROG	6.6%	—

Reasoning Qwen3 32B leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen3 32B
Chess Puzzles	0%	5%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1044	1334
Epoch Capabilities Index	101.99	138.51
Kagi LLM Benchmark	—	54.9%
CritPt	—	0.3%
DTBench	—	67.5%
LMCA	—	17.3%

Math Qwen3 32B leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen3 32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	0.6%	66.9%
LMArena Math	1086	1399

Knowledge Qwen3 32B leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen3 32B
GPQA Diamond	23.9%	65.7%
LMArena Expert	1007	1362
Vectara Hallucination Rate	—	5.9%

Multilingual Qwen3 32B leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292), Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English	973	1317
LMArena Chinese	959	1357
LMArena German	1014	1341
LMArena Russian	941	1311

Instruction Following Qwen3 32B leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following	1031	1305

Long Context Qwen3 32B leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen3 32B
LMArena Longer Query	1050	1327
Fiction.LiveBench	—	74.2%

Writing & Preference Qwen3 32B leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 1B	Qwen3 32B
LMArena Text	1055	1340
LMArena Creative Writing	1033	1297
LMArena Multi-Turn	1030	1331
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	200	—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.2 1B better than Qwen3 32B?

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 1B or Qwen3 32B?

Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper. It lists at $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

Is Llama 3.2 1B or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

Qwen3 32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3 32B does, with 131K tokens against 60K.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 1B and Qwen3 32B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 1B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.