Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs Llama 3.2 1B Instruct

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs 7.5x less per output token than Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite ($0.201 vs $1.50 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 8 benchmarks have a result for both.

Gemini 3.1 Flash LiteGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.50
8
Llama 3.2 1B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
9.6
Output $/M
$0.201
0
vs boards won of 8 shared

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Llama 3.2 1B Instruct: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite for a larger context window (1.05M against 60K tokens).

Shared results
8
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite only
8
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct only
30
Like-for-like categories
5 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite not benchmarked, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
Math, 79.4 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
OTIS Mock AIME: Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite 80.0% against Llama 3.2 1B Instruct 0.6%, 79.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite $1.50 against Llama 3.2 1B Instruct $0.201 per million output tokens, 7.5x apart.
Context window
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite takes 1.05M tokens, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct 60K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGemini 3.1 Flash LiteBarsLlama 3.2 1B InstructTies
Coding10
Agentic work10
Reasoning30
Math10
General20
All shared boards80
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index10
Coding benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured1.9%Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
SciCode43.4%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)24.2%0.0%Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
WeirdML52.2%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1070Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1056Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured4.8Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Epoch Capabilities Index144.3Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom31.3%0.0%Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
BALROGNot measured6.6%Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
DeepResearch Bench37.3%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)Not measured10.8%Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)82.2%19.6%Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)17.2%5.5%Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)81.8%23.9%Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1044Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1007Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1087Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark67.2%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Math benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
AA Math IndexNot measured0.0Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured0.0%Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
OTIS Mock AIME80.0%0.6%Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 327.7%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1086Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1098Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured20.0%Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1055Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1009Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1071Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1000Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
General benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
IFBench77.2%22.8%Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)74.3%6.7%Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
DTBench76.8%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
LMCA35.0%Not measuredOnly Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite measured
LMArena TextNot measured1055Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1031Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1033Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1117Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured973Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured959Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1014Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured941Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1030Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1050Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1030Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1025Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 30 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGemini 3.1 Flash LiteLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite$0.0010Fits in one request
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct$0.0001Fits in one request

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite$0.017Fits in one request
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct$0.0020Fits in one request

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite$0.065Fits in one request
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct$0.0074Exceeds the context window

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
SpecificationGoogle Gemini 3.1 Flash LiteMeta Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
MakerGoogleMeta Llama
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedMay 7, 2026September 25, 2024
Context window1.05M60K
Input $/Mtok$0.25$0.027
Output $/Mtok$1.50$0.201
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite better than Llama 3.2 1B Instruct for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite for a larger context window (1.05M against 60K tokens).

Which is cheaper, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Llama 3.2 1B Instruct?

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens; Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs $0.027 and $0.201. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite or Llama 3.2 1B Instruct?

Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite, with 1.05M tokens against 60K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite vs Llama 3.2 1B Instruct comparison based on?

8 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next