Noometry

Model comparison

Llama 3.2 1B vs Step 3.5 Flash

Step 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 2.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Step 3.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.2 1B Meta

20.1

Rank #354 Confirmed

Step 3.5 Flash StepFun

42.3

Rank #116 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 1B scores higher in 0 categories and Step 3.5 Flash in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Step 3.5 Flash leads 58.8 to 21.3.
  • Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper at $0.027 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.10 / $0.30 for Step 3.5 Flash.
  • Step 3.5 Flash accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 60K.

Side by side

Llama 3.2 1BStep 3.5 Flash
ProviderMetaStepFun
Noometry Index20.142.3
Released2024-09-242026-01-29
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window60K256K
Max output54K256K
Input $ / M tokens$0.027$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$0.20$0.30
Results tracked2219

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

Category by category

Coding Step 3.5 Flash leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338), Step 3.5 Flash: 42.4 (#105)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Coding10701436
BigCodeBench Instruct8.2%—
BigCodeBench Complete11.3%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150), Step 3.5 Flash: —

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BStep 3.5 Flash
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard10.8%—
BALROG6.6%—

Reasoning Step 3.5 Flash leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308), Step 3.5 Flash: 22.2 (#202)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts10441411
NYT Connections (extended)—28.4%
Chess Puzzles0%—
Epoch Capabilities Index101.99—

Math Step 3.5 Flash leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313), Step 3.5 Flash: 42.6 (#84)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Math10861408
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—66.8%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20250.6%—

Knowledge Step 3.5 Flash leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312), Step 3.5 Flash: 39.6 (#132)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Expert10071421
GPQA Diamond23.9%—

Multilingual Step 3.5 Flash leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292), Step 3.5 Flash: 50.5 (#119)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Non-English9731385
LMArena Chinese9591447
LMArena German10141405
LMArena Russian9411385
LMArena French—1421
LMArena Japanese—1354
LMArena Korean—1352
LMArena Spanish—1419

Instruction Following Step 3.5 Flash leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290), Step 3.5 Flash: 73.1 (#124)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following10311385

Long Context Step 3.5 Flash leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274), Step 3.5 Flash: 42.8 (#117)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Longer Query10501402

Writing & Preference Step 3.5 Flash leads

Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310), Step 3.5 Flash: 58.8 (#113)

BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1BStep 3.5 Flash
LMArena Text10551403
LMArena Creative Writing10331357
LMArena Multi-Turn10301405
EQ-Bench Creative Writing200—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.2 1B better than Step 3.5 Flash?

Step 3.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 2.1× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Step 3.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 1B or Step 3.5 Flash?

Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper. It lists at $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Step 3.5 Flash lists at $0.10 and $0.30.

Is Llama 3.2 1B or Step 3.5 Flash better for coding?

Step 3.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Step 3.5 Flash does, with 256K tokens against 60K.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 1B and Step 3.5 Flash share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 1B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Step 3.5 Flash has 19.

Related comparisons

Go deeper