Model comparison
Llama 3.2 1B vs QwQ-32B
QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 1B scores higher in 0 categories and QwQ-32B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where QwQ-32B leads 37.2 to 7.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 0.6% for Llama 3.2 1B and 59.2% for QwQ-32B.
Side by side
| Llama 3.2 1B | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 20.1 | 39.8 |
| Released | 2024-09-24 | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 60K | — |
| Max output | 54K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.027 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.20 | — |
| Results tracked | 22 | 36 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding QwQ-32B leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 8.2% | 44.6% |
| LMArena Coding | 1070 | 1333 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 11.3% | 54.4% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150), QwQ-32B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 10.8% | — |
| BALROG | 6.6% | — |
Reasoning QwQ-32B leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1044 | 1325 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 101.99 | 137.6 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 83.5% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65% |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.3 |
| LiveBench | — | 72% |
Math QwQ-32B leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | 59.2% |
| LMArena Math | 1086 | 1359 |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
Knowledge QwQ-32B leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 23.9% | 65.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1007 | 1324 |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
Multilingual QwQ-32B leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 973 | 1305 |
| LMArena Chinese | 959 | 1378 |
| LMArena German | 1014 | 1313 |
| LMArena Russian | 941 | 1297 |
| LMArena French | — | 1336 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1262 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1279 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1354 |
Instruction Following QwQ-32B leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1031 | 1297 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |
Long Context QwQ-32B leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1050 | 1308 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
Writing & Preference QwQ-32B leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1055 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1033 | 1288 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 200 | 1257 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1030 | 1314 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.2 1B better than QwQ-32B?
QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Llama 3.2 1B or QwQ-32B better for coding?
QwQ-32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.4 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 1B and QwQ-32B share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 1B has 22 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.