# DeepSeek LLM 67B vs Llama 3.2 1B

> DeepSeek LLM 67B is the stronger model overall, scoring 24.9 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/deepseek-llm-67b-vs-llama-3-2-1b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 14

## Summary

- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek LLM 67B scores higher in 6 categories and Llama 3.2 1B in 2 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where DeepSeek LLM 67B leads 31.9 to 21.1.

## Snapshot

| | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 24.9 | 20.1 |
| Rank | 347 | 354 |
| Context | — | 60K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.027 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.20 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- DeepSeek LLM 67B: 31.9 (#278)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1096 | 1070 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 8.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 11.3% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- DeepSeek LLM 67B: —
- Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 10.8% |
| BALROG | — | 6.6% |

## Reasoning

- DeepSeek LLM 67B: 16.5 (#304)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1070 | 1044 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 110.5 | 101.99 |

## Math

- DeepSeek LLM 67B: 8.7 (#324)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.8% | 0.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1108 | 1086 |
| MATH Level 5 | 6.4% | — |

## Knowledge

- DeepSeek LLM 67B: 7.0 (#313)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 24.6% | 23.9% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1007 |

## Multilingual

- DeepSeek LLM 67B: 29.4 (#267)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1073 | 973 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1132 | 959 |
| LMArena German | — | 1014 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 941 |

## Instruction Following

- DeepSeek LLM 67B: 55.4 (#277)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1079 | 1031 |

## Long Context

- DeepSeek LLM 67B: 33.1 (#265)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1092 | 1050 |

## Writing & Preference

- DeepSeek LLM 67B: 31.6 (#282)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310)

| Benchmark | DeepSeek LLM 67B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1105 | 1055 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1067 | 1033 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1082 | 1030 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 200 |

## FAQ

### Is DeepSeek LLM 67B better than Llama 3.2 1B?

DeepSeek LLM 67B is the stronger model overall, scoring 24.9 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.

### Is DeepSeek LLM 67B or Llama 3.2 1B better for coding?

DeepSeek LLM 67B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 31.9 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do DeepSeek LLM 67B and Llama 3.2 1B share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek LLM 67B has 15 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 1B has 22.