Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Mercury 3 vs Llama 3.2 1B Instruct

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs 1.7x less per output token than Mercury 3 ($0.201 vs $0.35 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.

Mercury 3Inception
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.35
Llama 3.2 1B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
9.6
Output $/M
$0.201
vs $0.35 vs $0.201 per 1M output tokens. Llama 3.2 1B Instruct is 1.7x cheaper.

Mercury 3 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 Mercury 3 for a larger context window (1M against 60K tokens).

No benchmark has tested both yet. Mercury 3 has results on Design Arena: websites, Design Arena: UI components and Design Arena: game dev; Llama 3.2 1B Instruct on LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run), Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) and LMArena Text: coding. Compare them on price and context instead.

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
Mercury 3 not benchmarked, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
Widest single gap
None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
Output price
Mercury 3 $0.35 against Llama 3.2 1B Instruct $0.201 per million output tokens, 1.7x apart.
Context window
Mercury 3 takes 1M tokens, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct 60K.

Benchmark by benchmark

Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.

CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index4 boards measured
Coding benchmarks for Mercury 3 and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkMercury 3Llama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
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
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 35 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
Intelligence benchmarks for Mercury 3 and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkMercury 3Llama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured4.8Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards measured
Agentic work benchmarks for Mercury 3 and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkMercury 3Llama 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
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
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards measured
Reasoning benchmarks for Mercury 3 and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkMercury 3Llama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
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)Not measured23.9%Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct 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 16 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards measured
Math benchmarks for Mercury 3 and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkMercury 3Llama 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 AIMENot measured0.6%Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct 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 8 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards measured
Knowledge benchmarks for Mercury 3 and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkMercury 3Llama 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 designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards measured
Web design benchmarks for Mercury 3 and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkMercury 3Llama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
Design Arena: websites1244Not measuredOnly Mercury 3 measured
Design Arena: UI components1270Not measuredOnly Mercury 3 measured
Design Arena: game dev1227Not measuredOnly Mercury 3 measured
Design Arena: data viz1207Not measuredOnly Mercury 3 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1240Not measuredOnly Mercury 3 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index14 boards measured
General benchmarks for Mercury 3 and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkMercury 3Llama 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
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 32 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

Mercury 3$0.0003Fits 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

Mercury 3$0.0060Fits 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

Mercury 3$0.024Fits 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 Mercury 3 and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
SpecificationInception Mercury 3Meta Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
MakerInceptionMeta Llama
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedOctober 16, 2026September 25, 2024
Context window1M60K
Input $/Mtok$0.10$0.027
Output $/Mtok$0.35$0.201
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Mercury 3 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 Mercury 3 for a larger context window (1M against 60K tokens).

Which is cheaper, Mercury 3 or Llama 3.2 1B Instruct?

Mercury 3 costs $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.35 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, Mercury 3 or Llama 3.2 1B Instruct?

Mercury 3, with 1M tokens against 60K.

Has any benchmark tested both Mercury 3 and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct?

No benchmark has tested both yet. Mercury 3 has results on Design Arena: websites, Design Arena: UI components and Design Arena: game dev; Llama 3.2 1B Instruct on LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run), Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) and LMArena Text: coding. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 21, 2026.

Compare next