Model comparison
Llama 3.2 1B vs Sonar
Sonar is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.5 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 14× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Sonar's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Meta
PerplexitySummary
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Sonar leads 52.6 to 21.3.
- Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper at $0.027 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1 / $1 for Sonar.
- Sonar accepts more context: 128K tokens versus 60K.
- Llama 3.2 1B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Llama 3.2 1B | Sonar | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Perplexity |
| Noometry Index | 20.1 | 38.5 |
| Released | 2024-09-24 | 2024-01-01 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 60K | 128K |
| Max output | 54K | 4K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.027 | $1 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.20 | $1 |
| Results tracked | 22 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Sonar leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338), Sonar: 35.7 (#221)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 8.2% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 35.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1070 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 11.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150), Sonar: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 10.8% | — |
| BALROG | 6.6% | — |
Reasoning Sonar leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308), Sonar: 21.1 (#227)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 46.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1044 | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 37.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 101.99 | — |
| LiveBench | — | 46.9% |
Math Sonar leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313), Sonar: 33.7 (#200)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 41.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1086 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312), Sonar: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 23.9% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1007 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292), Sonar: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 973 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 959 | — |
| LMArena German | 1014 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 941 | — |
Instruction Following Sonar leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290), Sonar: 71.4 (#150)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 76.2% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1031 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274), Sonar: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1050 | — |
Writing & Preference Sonar leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310), Sonar: 52.6 (#167)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1055 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1033 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 200 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1030 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 44.1% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.2 1B better than Sonar?
Sonar is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.5 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 14× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Sonar's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 1B or Sonar?
Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper. It lists at $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Sonar lists at $1 and $1.
Is Llama 3.2 1B or Sonar better for coding?
Sonar scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.7 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Sonar does, with 128K tokens against 60K.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 1B and Sonar share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 1B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Sonar has 7.