# Grok 4.1 vs Llama 3.2 1B

> Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.5 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/grok-4-1-vs-llama-3-2-1b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 13

## Summary

- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.1 scores higher in 9 categories and Llama 3.2 1B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Grok 4.1 leads 62.4 to 21.3.
- Llama 3.2 1B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Grok 4.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 41.5 | 20.1 |
| Rank | 134 | 354 |
| Context | — | 60K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.027 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.20 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Grok 4.1: 33.7 (#253)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1445 | 1070 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1214 | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 8.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 11.3% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Grok 4.1: 34.1 (#49)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 10.8% |
| Cybench | 39% | — |
| BALROG | — | 6.6% |

## Reasoning

- Grok 4.1: 29.5 (#91)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1435 | 1044 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 101.99 |

## Math

- Grok 4.1: 38.9 (#120)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1422 | 1086 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 0.6% |

## Knowledge

- Grok 4.1: 39.5 (#133)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1417 | 1007 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 23.9% |

## Multilingual

- Grok 4.1: 53.4 (#68)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1425 | 973 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1465 | 959 |
| LMArena German | 1446 | 1014 |
| LMArena Russian | 1434 | 941 |
| LMArena French | 1448 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1397 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1407 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1438 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Grok 4.1: 73.8 (#111)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1400 | 1031 |

## Long Context

- Grok 4.1: 43.2 (#100)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | 1050 |

## Writing & Preference

- Grok 4.1: 62.4 (#75)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1437 | 1055 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1411 | 1033 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1437 | 1030 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 200 |

## FAQ

### Is Grok 4.1 better than Llama 3.2 1B?

Grok 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.5 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Grok 4.1 or Llama 3.2 1B better for coding?

Grok 4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.7 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 and Llama 3.2 1B share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 has 19 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 1B has 22.