Noometry

Model comparison

Llama 3.2 1B vs Solar Pro4

Solar Pro4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.1 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 7.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Solar Pro4's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.2 1B Meta

20.1

Rank #354 Confirmed

Solar Pro4 Upstage

42.1

Rank #121 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 1B scores higher in 0 categories and Solar Pro4 in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Solar Pro4 leads 56.5 to 21.3.
  • Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper at $0.027 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $1.20 for Solar Pro4.
  • Solar Pro4 accepts more context: 524K tokens versus 60K.
  • Llama 3.2 1B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Llama 3.2 1BSolar Pro4
ProviderMetaUpstage
Noometry Index20.142.1
Released2024-09-242026-08-06
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window60K524K
Max output54K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.027$0.30
Output $ / M tokens$0.20$1.20
Results tracked2218

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

Category by category

Coding Solar Pro4 leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338), Solar Pro4: 40.1 (#149)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BSolar Pro4
LMArena Coding10701437
LMArena WebDev—1371
BigCodeBench Instruct8.2%—
BigCodeBench Complete11.3%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150), Solar Pro4: —

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BSolar Pro4
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard10.8%—
BALROG6.6%—

Reasoning Solar Pro4 leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308), Solar Pro4: 28.5 (#104)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BSolar Pro4
LMArena Hard Prompts10441399
Chess Puzzles0%—
Epoch Capabilities Index101.99—

Math Solar Pro4 leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313), Solar Pro4: 38.8 (#128)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BSolar Pro4
LMArena Math10861416
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20250.6%—

Knowledge Solar Pro4 leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312), Solar Pro4: 39.8 (#129)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BSolar Pro4
LMArena Expert10071427
GPQA Diamond23.9%—

Multilingual Solar Pro4 leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292), Solar Pro4: 48.7 (#139)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BSolar Pro4
LMArena Non-English9731361
LMArena Chinese9591415
LMArena German10141364
LMArena Russian9411360
LMArena French—1397
LMArena Japanese—1309
LMArena Korean—1382
LMArena Spanish—1401

Instruction Following Solar Pro4 leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290), Solar Pro4: 72.7 (#132)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BSolar Pro4
LMArena Instruction Following10311377

Long Context Solar Pro4 leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274), Solar Pro4: 42.1 (#130)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BSolar Pro4
LMArena Longer Query10501381

Writing & Preference Solar Pro4 leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310), Solar Pro4: 56.5 (#138)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BSolar Pro4
LMArena Text10551386
LMArena Creative Writing10331316
LMArena Multi-Turn10301385
EQ-Bench Creative Writing200—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.2 1B better than Solar Pro4?

Solar Pro4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.1 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 7.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Solar Pro4's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 1B or Solar Pro4?

Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper. It lists at $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Solar Pro4 lists at $0.30 and $1.20.

Is Llama 3.2 1B or Solar Pro4 better for coding?

Solar Pro4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.1 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Solar Pro4 does, with 524K tokens against 60K.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 1B and Solar Pro4 share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 1B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Solar Pro4 has 18.

Related comparisons

Go deeper