Noometry

Model comparison

Llama 3.2 1B vs Qwen3.5 Plus

Qwen3.5 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.9 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 13× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.5 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.2 1B Meta

20.1

Rank #354 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

42.9

Rank #106 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 1B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5 Plus in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.5 Plus leads 49.6 to 10.4.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 0.6% for Llama 3.2 1B and 86.7% for Qwen3.5 Plus.
  • Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper at $0.027 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $2.40 for Qwen3.5 Plus.
  • Qwen3.5 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 1BQwen3.5 Plus
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index20.142.9
Released2024-09-242026-02-16
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window60K1M
Max output54K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.027$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$0.20$2.40
Results tracked2215

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BQwen3.5 Plus
BigCodeBench Instruct8.2%—
LMArena Coding1070—
BigCodeBench Complete11.3%—
ALE-Bench—621.92

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BQwen3.5 Plus
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard10.8%—
BALROG6.6%—
Vending-Bench 2—0.54

Reasoning Qwen3.5 Plus leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308), Qwen3.5 Plus: 32.8 (#74)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BQwen3.5 Plus
Chess Puzzles0%22%
Epoch Capabilities Index101.99146.78
LMArena Hard Prompts1044—
Mystery Game Puzzles—17%
DTBench—80.5%
LMCA—36.4%

Math Qwen3.5 Plus leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313), Qwen3.5 Plus: 49.6 (#61)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BQwen3.5 Plus
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20250.6%86.7%
LMArena Math1086—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—21%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—2.1%

Knowledge Qwen3.5 Plus leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312), Qwen3.5 Plus: 46.0 (#83)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BQwen3.5 Plus
GPQA Diamond23.9%84.8%
SimpleQA Verified—25.4%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.7%
LMArena Expert1007—

Multilingual Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BQwen3.5 Plus
LMArena Non-English973—
LMArena Chinese959—
LMArena German1014—
LMArena Russian941—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BQwen3.5 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following1031—

Long Context Qwen3.5 Plus leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274), Qwen3.5 Plus: 43.0 (#113)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BQwen3.5 Plus
CL-bench—19.8%
CL-bench Life—12.4%
LMArena Longer Query1050—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310), Qwen3.5 Plus: —

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BQwen3.5 Plus
LMArena Text1055—
LMArena Creative Writing1033—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing200—
LMArena Multi-Turn1030—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.2 1B better than Qwen3.5 Plus?

Qwen3.5 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.9 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 13× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.5 Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 1B or Qwen3.5 Plus?

Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper. It lists at $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 Plus lists at $0.40 and $2.40.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 60K.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 1B and Qwen3.5 Plus share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 1B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 Plus has 15.

Related comparisons

Go deeper