Model comparison
Llama 3.2 1B vs Qwen3.6 Flash
Qwen3.6 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 6.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 1B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Flash in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Flash leads 42.1 to 7.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 0.6% for Llama 3.2 1B and 84.4% for Qwen3.6 Flash.
- Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper at $0.027 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.19 / $1.13 for Qwen3.6 Flash.
- Qwen3.6 Flash 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 | Qwen3.6 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 20.1 | 38.8 |
| Released | 2024-09-24 | 2026-04-27 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 60K | 1M |
| Max output | 54K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.027 | $0.19 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.20 | $1.13 |
| Results tracked | 22 | 13 |
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), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 8.2% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1070 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 11.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 326.4 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 10.8% | — |
| BALROG | 6.6% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 Flash leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308), Qwen3.6 Flash: 29.0 (#96)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 20% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 101.99 | 143.26 |
| SimpleBench | — | 35.2% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1044 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 18% |
| DTBench | — | 77.1% |
| LMCA | — | 31% |
Math Qwen3.6 Flash leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313), Qwen3.6 Flash: 39.0 (#117)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | 84.4% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 22.5% |
| LMArena Math | 1086 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 10.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Flash leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312), Qwen3.6 Flash: 42.1 (#100)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 23.9% | 83.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 15.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1007 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 973 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 959 | — |
| LMArena German | 1014 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 941 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1031 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1050 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Qwen3.6 Flash?
Qwen3.6 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 6.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 1B or Qwen3.6 Flash?
Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper. It lists at $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Flash lists at $0.19 and $1.13.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 60K.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 1B and Qwen3.6 Flash share?
4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 1B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Flash has 13.