# Llama 3.2 1B vs Qwen3 8B

> Qwen3 8B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.3 to 19.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 4.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 8B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/llama-3-2-1b-vs-qwen3-8b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 5

## Summary

- They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 1B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3 8B in 6 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3 8B leads 36.1 to 7.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 0.6% for Llama 3.2 1B and 56.1% for Qwen3 8B.
- Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper at $0.027 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.18 / $0.70 for Qwen3 8B.
- Qwen3 8B accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 60K.

## Snapshot

| | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 19.9 | 33.3 |
| Rank | 349 | 237 |
| Context | 60K | 131K |
| Input $/M | $0.027 | $0.18 |
| Output $/M | $0.20 | $0.70 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Llama 3.2 1B: 20.6 (#333)
- Qwen3 8B: 33.4 (#245)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 22.6% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 8.2% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1071 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 11.3% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Llama 3.2 1B: 14.5 (#142)
- Qwen3 8B: 29.9 (#71)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 10.8% | 42.6% |
| BALROG | 6.6% | — |

## Reasoning

- Llama 3.2 1B: 15.6 (#304)
- Qwen3 8B: 16.1 (#299)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 101.95 | 136.17 |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1044 | — |
| DTBench | — | 59.7% |
| LMCA | — | 8.8% |

## Math

- Llama 3.2 1B: 9.7 (#308)
- Qwen3 8B: 33.3 (#176)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | 56.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1086 | — |

## Knowledge

- Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#307)
- Qwen3 8B: 36.1 (#164)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 23.9% | 56.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 4.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1007 | — |

## Multilingual

- Llama 3.2 1B: 23.9 (#287)
- Qwen3 8B: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 973 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 958 | — |
| LMArena German | 1014 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 941 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Llama 3.2 1B: 52.6 (#285)
- Qwen3 8B: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1031 | — |

## Long Context

- Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#269)
- Qwen3 8B: 37.8 (#205)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 62.1% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1050 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Llama 3.2 1B: 21.4 (#305)
- Qwen3 8B: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Qwen3 8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1055 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1033 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 200 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1030 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Llama 3.2 1B better than Qwen3 8B?

Qwen3 8B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.3 to 19.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 4.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 8B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 1B or Qwen3 8B?

Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper. It lists at $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3 8B lists at $0.18 and $0.70.

### Is Llama 3.2 1B or Qwen3 8B better for coding?

Qwen3 8B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.4 versus 20.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3 8B does, with 131K tokens against 60K.

### How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 1B and Qwen3 8B share?

5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 1B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 8B has 11.