Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-4o-mini vs Llama 3.2 1B Instruct

GPT-4o-mini leads Llama 3.2 1B Instruct on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 6.7 to 4.8, and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs 3.0x less per output token ($0.201 vs $0.60 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 8 benchmarks have a result for both.

GPT-4o-miniOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
6.7
Output $/M
$0.60
7
Llama 3.2 1B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
4.8
Output $/M
$0.201
1
vs boards won of 8 shared

GPT-4o-mini 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-mini for a larger context window (128K against 60K tokens) and work measured by Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Shared results
8
GPT-4o-mini only
19
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct only
29
Like-for-like categories
6 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-mini not benchmarked, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
Knowledge, 44.8 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run): GPT-4o-mini 64.8% against Llama 3.2 1B Instruct 20.0%, 44.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-4o-mini $0.60 against Llama 3.2 1B Instruct $0.201 per million output tokens, 3.0x apart.
Context window
GPT-4o-mini 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-miniBarsLlama 3.2 1B InstructTies
Coding10
Intelligence10
Reasoning11
Math20
Knowledge10
General10
All shared boards71
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index10
Coding benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
AA Coding Index11.4Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)26.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)23.4%1.9%GPT-4o-mini
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured0.0%Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct 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 32 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index6.74.8GPT-4o-mini
Epoch Capabilities Index126.5Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniLlama 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
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond44.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)56.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)42.6%19.6%GPT-4o-mini
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)4.2%5.5%Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured23.9%Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
ARC-AGI-20.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini 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 12 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Math benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
AIME11.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)72.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
MGSM (Vals AI)86.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
AA Math Index14.70.0GPT-4o-mini
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)14.7%0.0%GPT-4o-mini
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured0.6%Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
GSM8K91.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini 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 4 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro62.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)45.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)60.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)54.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
MedQA (Vals AI)72.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)64.8%20.0%GPT-4o-mini
MMLU81.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini 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 6 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
General benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
IFBench31.0%22.8%GPT-4o-mini
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured6.7%Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
DTBench54.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
LMCA10.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini measured
PIQA88.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o-mini 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 29 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-4o-mini and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGPT-4o-miniLlama 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-mini$0.0004Fits 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-mini$0.0093Fits 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-mini$0.036Exceeds 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-mini and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-4o-miniMeta Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
MakerOpenAIMeta Llama
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedJuly 18, 2024September 25, 2024
Context window128K60K
Input $/Mtok$0.15$0.027
Output $/Mtok$0.60$0.201
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-4o-mini 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-mini for a larger context window (128K against 60K tokens) and work measured by Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, GPT-4o-mini or Llama 3.2 1B Instruct?

GPT-4o-mini costs $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 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-mini or Llama 3.2 1B Instruct?

GPT-4o-mini, with 128K tokens against 60K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-4o-mini vs Llama 3.2 1B Instruct comparison based on?

8 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-4o-mini'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