# Claude 2.1 vs Llama 3.2 1B

> Claude 2.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 24.9 to 19.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-2-1-vs-llama-3-2-1b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 3

## Summary

- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 3 categories and Llama 3.2 1B in 1 category; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Claude 2.1 leads 15.5 to 7.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 33% for Claude 2.1 and 23.9% for Llama 3.2 1B.
- Llama 3.2 1B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 24.9 | 19.9 |
| Rank | 340 | 349 |
| Context | — | 60K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.027 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.20 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude 2.1: 25.8 (#322)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 20.6 (#333)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 7.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 8.2% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1071 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 11.3% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude 2.1: —
- Llama 3.2 1B: 14.5 (#142)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 10.8% |
| BALROG | — | 6.6% |

## Reasoning

- Claude 2.1: 20.6 (#216)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 15.6 (#304)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.22 | 101.95 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1044 |
| DTBench | 51% | — |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |

## Math

- Claude 2.1: 9.6 (#309)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 9.7 (#308)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | 0.6% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1086 |

## Knowledge

- Claude 2.1: 15.5 (#287)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#307)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | 23.9% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1007 |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude 2.1: —
- Llama 3.2 1B: 23.9 (#287)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 973 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 958 |
| LMArena German | — | 1014 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 941 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude 2.1: —
- Llama 3.2 1B: 52.6 (#285)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1031 |

## Long Context

- Claude 2.1: —
- Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#269)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1050 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude 2.1: —
- Llama 3.2 1B: 21.4 (#305)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1055 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1033 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 200 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1030 |

## FAQ

### Is Claude 2.1 better than Llama 3.2 1B?

Claude 2.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 24.9 to 19.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Claude 2.1 or Llama 3.2 1B better for coding?

Claude 2.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 25.8 versus 20.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Llama 3.2 1B share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 1B has 22.