# Llama 3.2 1B vs Sonar

> Sonar is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.5 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 14× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Sonar's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/llama-3-2-1b-vs-sonar
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Sonar leads 52.6 to 21.3.
- Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper at $0.027 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $1 / $1 for Sonar.
- Sonar accepts more context: 128K tokens versus 60K.
- Llama 3.2 1B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Llama 3.2 1B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Perplexity |
| Noometry Index | 20.1 | 38.5 |
| Rank | 354 | 187 |
| Context | 60K | 128K |
| Input $/M | $0.027 | $1 |
| Output $/M | $0.20 | $1 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338)
- Sonar: 35.7 (#221)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 8.2% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 35.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1070 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 11.3% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150)
- Sonar: —

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

## Reasoning

- Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308)
- Sonar: 21.1 (#227)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 46.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1044 | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 37.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 101.99 | — |
| LiveBench | — | 46.9% |

## Math

- Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313)
- Sonar: 33.7 (#200)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 41.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1086 | — |

## Knowledge

- Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312)
- Sonar: —

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

## Multilingual

- Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292)
- Sonar: —

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

## Instruction Following

- Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290)
- Sonar: 71.4 (#150)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 76.2% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1031 | — |

## Long Context

- Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274)
- Sonar: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1050 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310)
- Sonar: 52.6 (#167)

| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1055 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1033 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 200 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1030 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 44.1% |

## FAQ

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

Sonar is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.5 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 14× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Sonar's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 1B or Sonar?

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

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

Sonar scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.7 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Sonar does, with 128K tokens against 60K.

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

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 1B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Sonar has 7.