# Llama 3.2 1B vs Mercury

> Mercury is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 19.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/llama-3-2-1b-vs-mercury
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 8

## Summary

- They share 8 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 1B scores higher in 0 categories and Mercury in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Mercury leads 46.2 to 21.4.
- Llama 3.2 1B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Llama 3.2 1B | Mercury |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Inception |
| Noometry Index | 19.9 | 37.3 |
| Rank | 349 | 192 |
| Context | 60K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.027 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.20 | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Llama 3.2 1B: 20.6 (#333)
- Mercury: 38.1 (#164)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Mercury |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1071 | 1323 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 8.2% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 11.3% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

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

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

## Reasoning

- Llama 3.2 1B: 15.6 (#304)
- Mercury: 16.8 (#288)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Mercury |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1044 | 1284 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 21.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 101.95 | — |

## Math

- Llama 3.2 1B: 9.7 (#308)
- Mercury: —

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

## Knowledge

- Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#307)
- Mercury: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Mercury |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 23.9% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1007 | — |

## Multilingual

- Llama 3.2 1B: 23.9 (#287)
- Mercury: 41.7 (#201)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Mercury |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 973 | 1259 |
| LMArena Chinese | 958 | — |
| LMArena German | 1014 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 941 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Llama 3.2 1B: 52.6 (#285)
- Mercury: 65.3 (#220)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Mercury |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1031 | 1238 |

## Long Context

- Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#269)
- Mercury: 38.3 (#193)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Mercury |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1050 | 1264 |

## Writing & Preference

- Llama 3.2 1B: 21.4 (#305)
- Mercury: 46.2 (#216)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Mercury |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1055 | 1282 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1033 | 1186 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1030 | 1283 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 200 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Llama 3.2 1B better than Mercury?

Mercury is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.3 to 19.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Llama 3.2 1B or Mercury better for coding?

Mercury scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.1 versus 20.6 in the Noometry coding category.

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

8 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 1B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Mercury has 9.