# DeepSeek Coder 33B vs Llama 3.2 1B

> Llama 3.2 1B has enough public results to be ranked (#354); DeepSeek Coder 33B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/deepseek-coder-33b-vs-llama-3-2-1b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 3

## Summary

- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek Coder 33B scores higher in 1 category and Llama 3.2 1B in 0 categories; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where DeepSeek Coder 33B leads 38.0 to 21.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Complete: 51.1% for DeepSeek Coder 33B and 11.3% for Llama 3.2 1B.

## Snapshot

| | DeepSeek Coder 33B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 38.9 | 20.1 |
| Rank | — | 354 |
| Context | — | 60K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.027 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.20 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- DeepSeek Coder 33B: 38.0 (#184)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 33B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42% | 8.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 51.1% | 11.3% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1070 |
| HumanEval+ | 75% | — |
| MBPP+ | 70.1% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- DeepSeek Coder 33B: —
- Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 33B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 10.8% |
| BALROG | — | 6.6% |

## Reasoning

- DeepSeek Coder 33B: —
- Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 33B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 96.32 | 101.99 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1044 |
| WinoGrande | 62% | — |

## Math

- DeepSeek Coder 33B: —
- Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 33B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 0.6% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1086 |
| GSM8K | 35.4% | — |

## Knowledge

- DeepSeek Coder 33B: —
- Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 33B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 23.9% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1007 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.2% | — |
| MMLU | 39.4% | — |

## Multilingual

- DeepSeek Coder 33B: —
- Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 33B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 973 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 959 |
| LMArena German | — | 1014 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 941 |

## Instruction Following

- DeepSeek Coder 33B: —
- Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 33B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1031 |

## Long Context

- DeepSeek Coder 33B: —
- Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 33B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1050 |

## Writing & Preference

- DeepSeek Coder 33B: —
- Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek Coder 33B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1055 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1033 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 200 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1030 |

## FAQ

### Is DeepSeek Coder 33B better than Llama 3.2 1B?

Llama 3.2 1B has enough public results to be ranked (#354); DeepSeek Coder 33B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

### Is DeepSeek Coder 33B or Llama 3.2 1B better for coding?

DeepSeek Coder 33B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.0 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do DeepSeek Coder 33B and Llama 3.2 1B share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek Coder 33B has 9 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 1B has 22.