Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-4o (2024-11-20) vs Llama 3.2 1B Instruct

GPT-4o (2024-11-20) leads Llama 3.2 1B Instruct on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 8.4 to 4.8, and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs 49.8x less per output token ($0.201 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 3 benchmarks have a result for both.

GPT-4o (2024-11-20)OpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$10.00
3
Llama 3.2 1B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
9.6
Output $/M
$0.201
0
vs boards won of 3 shared

GPT-4o (2024-11-20) 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 GPT-4o (2024-11-20) for a larger context window (128K against 60K tokens).

Shared results
3
GPT-4o (2024-11-20) only
21
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct only
35
Like-for-like categories
3 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
GPT-4o (2024-11-20) not benchmarked, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
Reasoning, 24.0 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run): GPT-4o (2024-11-20) 47.9% against Llama 3.2 1B Instruct 23.9%, 24.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-4o (2024-11-20) $10.00 against Llama 3.2 1B Instruct $0.201 per million output tokens, 49.8x apart.
Context window
GPT-4o (2024-11-20) takes 128K 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
CategoryGPT-4o (2024-11-20)BarsLlama 3.2 1B InstructTies
Intelligence10
Reasoning10
Math10
All shared boards30
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index9 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-11-20)Llama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
Aider polyglot18.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)43.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured1.9%Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured0.0%Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
GSO-Bench0.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
WeirdML25.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
Cybench12.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) 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 34 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-11-20)Llama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index8.44.8GPT-4o (2024-11-20)
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-11-20)Llama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured0.0%Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
BALROGNot measured6.6%Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
TheAgentCompany8.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)Not measured10.8%Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-11-20)Llama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond53.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)62.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured19.6%Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured5.5%Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)47.9%23.9%GPT-4o (2024-11-20)
VPCT40.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
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
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Math benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-11-20)Llama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
AIME11.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)74.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
MGSM (Vals AI)90.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
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 AIME6.3%0.6%GPT-4o (2024-11-20)
MATH level 549.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) 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 5 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index12 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-11-20)Llama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro72.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)82.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)59.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)45.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)74.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)57.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured20.0%Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
GeoBench71.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) 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 8 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-11-20)Llama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index15 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-11-20)Llama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
IFBenchNot measured22.8%Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured6.7%Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)81.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) 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 33 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-11-20)Llama 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

GPT-4o (2024-11-20)$0.0075Fits 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

GPT-4o (2024-11-20)$0.155Fits 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

GPT-4o (2024-11-20)$0.600Exceeds the context window
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 GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-4o (2024-11-20)Meta Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
MakerOpenAIMeta Llama
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedNovember 20, 2024September 25, 2024
Context window128K60K
Input $/Mtok$2.50$0.027
Output $/Mtok$10.00$0.201
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-4o (2024-11-20) 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 GPT-4o (2024-11-20) for a larger context window (128K against 60K tokens).

Which is cheaper, GPT-4o (2024-11-20) or Llama 3.2 1B Instruct?

GPT-4o (2024-11-20) costs $2.50 per million input tokens and $10.00 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, GPT-4o (2024-11-20) or Llama 3.2 1B Instruct?

GPT-4o (2024-11-20), with 128K tokens against 60K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-4o (2024-11-20) vs Llama 3.2 1B Instruct comparison based on?

3 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GPT-4o (2024-11-20)'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