Model comparison

Llama 3.2 3B vs o1

o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.6 to 28.4 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 219× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 13 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.2 3B

Summary

They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 3B scores higher in 0 categories and o1 in 9 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in writing & preference, where o1 leads 55.8 to 24.9.
Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.33 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
o1 accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 131K.
Llama 3.2 3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Llama 3.2 3B and o1 specifications
	Llama 3.2 3B	o1
Provider	Meta	OpenAI
Noometry Index	28.4	40.6
Released	2024-09-24	2024-09-12
Weights	Open	Proprietary
Context window	131K	200K
Max output	118K	100K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.05	$15
Output $ / M tokens	$0.33	$60
Results tracked	18	52

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

Category by category

Coding o1 leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 27.1 (#314), o1: 45.7 (#64)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	o1
LMArena Coding	1098	1367
Aider Polyglot	—	61.7%
WeirdML	—	47.6%
BigCodeBench Instruct	23.4%	—
LiveBench Coding	—	69.7%
BigCodeBench Complete	28.3%	—
CadEval	—	56%
HumanEval+	—	89%
MBPP+	—	80.2%

Agentic & Tool Use o1 leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 19.9 (#135), o1: 24.3 (#111)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	o1
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	21.9%	—
Cybench	—	10%
BALROG	10.1%	—
METR Time Horizons	—	51.1%

Reasoning o1 leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#225), o1: 27.5 (#103)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	o1
LMArena Hard Prompts	1095	1372
SimpleBench	—	41.7%
ARC-AGI-1	—	30.7%
Chess Puzzles	—	15%
EnigmaEval	—	5.7%
LiveBench Reasoning	—	91.6%
DTBench	—	74.7%
LiveBench Data Analysis	—	65.5%
LMCA	—	22.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index	—	141.92
LiveBench	—	75.7%

Math o1 leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 29.9 (#213), o1: 34.9 (#150)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	o1
LMArena Math	1126	1388
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)	—	14.7%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	—	73.3%
LiveBench Math	—	80.3%
MATH Level 5	—	94.7%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)	—	9.3%

Knowledge o1 leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 29.1 (#232), o1: 41.5 (#101)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	o1
LMArena Expert	1090	1362
GPQA Diamond	—	76.8%
Humanity's Last Exam	—	8%
SimpleQA Verified	—	41.1%
Confabulations	—	11.7%

Multimodal Not comparable

Llama 3.2 3B: —, o1: 33.6 (#87)

Multimodal benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	o1
LMArena Vision	—	1168
GeoBench	—	80%
VPCT	—	37%
SpatialViz-Bench	—	41.4%

Multilingual o1 leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 26.4 (#276), o1: 48.8 (#137)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	o1
LMArena Non-English	1019	1359
LMArena Chinese	1017	1394
LMArena German	1056	1337
LMArena Russian	949	1356
LMArena French	—	1343
LMArena Japanese	—	1346
LMArena Korean	—	1396
LMArena Spanish	—	1345

Instruction Following o1 leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 56.3 (#270), o1: 75.0 (#82)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	o1
LMArena Instruction Following	1089	1368
LiveBench Instruction Following	—	81.5%

Long Context o1 leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#256), o1: 50.3 (#9)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	o1
LMArena Longer Query	1101	1378
Fiction.LiveBench	—	83.3%

Writing & Preference o1 leads

Llama 3.2 3B: 24.9 (#302), o1: 55.8 (#139)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Llama 3.2 3B	o1
LMArena Text	1110	1366
LMArena Creative Writing	1094	1347
LMArena Multi-Turn	1105	1368
Short-Story Creative Writing	—	70.2%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	595	—
LiveBench Language	—	65.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.2 3B better than o1?

o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.6 to 28.4 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 3B costs 219× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 3B or o1?

Llama 3.2 3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.33 per million output tokens; o1 lists at $15 and $60.

Is Llama 3.2 3B or o1 better for coding?

o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 45.7 versus 27.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

o1 does, with 200K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 3B and o1 share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 3B has 18 scored results on Noometry and o1 has 52.