GPT-4o vs Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs 49.8x less per output token than GPT-4o ($0.201 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 10 benchmarks have a result for both.
GPT-4o 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 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
- 10
- GPT-4o only
- 16
- Llama 3.2 1B Instruct only
- 27
- 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct has a AA Intelligence Index result, 4.8.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only GPT-4o has a Design Arena: websites result, 831.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
GPT-4o
GPT-4o takes 128K tokens against 60K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
GPT-4o $0.0075, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct $0.0001 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- GPT-4o not benchmarked, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Knowledge, 54.8 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run): GPT-4o 74.8% against Llama 3.2 1B Instruct 20.0%, 54.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- GPT-4o $10.00 against Llama 3.2 1B Instruct $0.201 per million output tokens, 49.8x apart.
- Context window
- GPT-4o 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.
| Category | GPT-4o | Bars | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 2 | 0 | ||
| Agentic work | 1 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 1 | 1 | ||
| Math | 2 | 0 | ||
| Knowledge | 1 | 0 | ||
| General | 2 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 9 | 1 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index20
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 38.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| SWE-bench Lite | 38.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| SWE-bench (full test set) | 18.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| SWE-bench Multimodal | 30.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 30.9% | 1.9% | GPT-4o |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 8.3% | 0.0% | GPT-4o |
| LMArena Text: coding | Not measured | 1070 | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | Not measured | 1056 | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 30 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | Not measured | 4.8 | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 25.1% | 0.0% | GPT-4o |
| GDPval | 9.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| BALROG | Not measured | 6.6% | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 54.3% | 19.6% | GPT-4o |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 2.4% | 5.5% | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | Not measured | 23.9% | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| ARC-AGI | 4.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 0.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | Not measured | 1044 | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | Not measured | 1007 | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | Not measured | 1087 | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | 6.0 | 0.0 | GPT-4o |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 6.0% | 0.0% | GPT-4o |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Not measured | 0.6% | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: math | Not measured | 1086 | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | Not measured | 1098 | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 74.8% | 20.0% | GPT-4o |
| MMLU | 88.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| LMArena Text: science | Not measured | 1055 | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | Not measured | 1009 | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | Not measured | 1071 | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | Not measured | 1000 | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 831 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | 885 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | 906 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Design Arena: data viz | 858 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | 869 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 861 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 34.3% | 22.8% | GPT-4o |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 49.3% | 6.7% | GPT-4o |
| DTBench | 64.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| LMCA | 16.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| LMArena Text | Not measured | 1055 | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | Not measured | 1031 | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | Not measured | 1033 | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: English | Not measured | 1117 | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | Not measured | 973 | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | Not measured | 959 | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: German | Not measured | 1014 | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | Not measured | 941 | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | Not measured | 1030 | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | Not measured | 1050 | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | Not measured | 1030 | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | Not measured | 1025 | Only 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
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
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.
| Specification | OpenAI GPT-4o | Meta Llama 3.2 1B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | Meta Llama |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | May 13, 2024 | September 25, 2024 |
| Context window | 128K | 60K |
| Input $/Mtok | $2.50 | $0.027 |
| Output $/Mtok | $10.00 | $0.201 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GPT-4o 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 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 or Llama 3.2 1B Instruct?
GPT-4o 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 or Llama 3.2 1B Instruct?
GPT-4o, with 128K tokens against 60K.
How many benchmarks is the GPT-4o vs Llama 3.2 1B Instruct comparison based on?
10 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-4o'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.