Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Kimi K2.7 Code vs Llama 3.2 1B Instruct

Kimi K2.7 Code leads Llama 3.2 1B Instruct on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 25.8 to 4.8, and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs 19.9x less per output token ($0.201 vs $4.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 9 benchmarks have a result for both.

Kimi K2.7 CodeMoonshot AI
Coding
53.4
Overall
56.7
Output $/M
$4.00
9
Llama 3.2 1B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
9.6
Output $/M
$0.201
0
vs boards won of 9 shared

Kimi K2.7 Code or Llama 3.2 1B Instruct: which to pick

Only Kimi K2.7 Code has a coding score, 53.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; Llama 3.2 1B Instruct has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Llama 3.2 1B Instruct for output tokens 19.9x cheaper ($0.201 vs $4.00 per million).

Shared results
9
Kimi K2.7 Code only
42
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
Kimi K2.7 Code 53.4 from 4 benchmarks, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
Math, 95.0 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
OTIS Mock AIME: Kimi K2.7 Code 95.6% against Llama 3.2 1B Instruct 0.6%, 95.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Kimi K2.7 Code $4.00 against Llama 3.2 1B Instruct $0.201 per million output tokens, 19.9x apart.
Context window
Kimi K2.7 Code takes 262K 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
CategoryKimi K2.7 CodeBarsLlama 3.2 1B InstructTies
Coding10
Intelligence10
Agentic work10
Reasoning30
Math10
General20
All shared boards90
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index10
Coding benchmarks for Kimi K2.7 Code and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
LMArena WebDev1474Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
AA Coding Index60.8Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)82.0%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)78.2%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)47.2%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
Code migration (Vals AI)25.4%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)0.0%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)67.0%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
SkillsBench (Vals AI)50.0%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured1.9%Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
SciCode47.8%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)44.7%0.0%Kimi K2.7 Code
FrontierCode30.1%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
WeirdML54.1%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
ALE-Bench886.2Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1070Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1056Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena WebDev: React1475Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1451Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
LMArena WebDev: from an image1513Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for Kimi K2.7 Code and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index25.84.8Kimi K2.7 Code
Epoch Capabilities Index150.1Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Agentic work benchmarks for Kimi K2.7 Code and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
AA Agentic Index21.0Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
Design Arena: agents building web apps1176Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack apps1175Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile apps1143Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
Design Arena: agents building Android apps1137Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot games1147Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
Design Arena: agents building games1131Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
Design Arena: HTML slides1201Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
Design Arena: PowerPoint slides1154Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
τ²-Bench Telecom90.1%0.0%Kimi K2.7 Code
APEX-Agents37.6%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
BALROGNot measured6.6%Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Vending-Bench 2$5,083Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)Not measured10.8%Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
Reasoning benchmarks for Kimi K2.7 Code and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)89.6%19.6%Kimi K2.7 Code
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)35.0%5.5%Kimi K2.7 Code
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)87.9%23.9%Kimi K2.7 Code
SimpleBench57.9%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
Chess puzzles14.0%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code 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 Kimi K2.7 Code and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeLlama 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 AIME95.6%0.6%Kimi K2.7 Code
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 354.0%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
FrontierMath, tier 412.2%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code 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 6 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Kimi K2.7 Code and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured20.0%Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
SimpleQA Verified36.5%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code 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 12 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Kimi K2.7 Code and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
Design Arena: websites1264Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
Design Arena: UI components1259Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
Design Arena: game dev1220Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
Design Arena: data viz1227Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
Design Arena: 3D1241Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
Design Arena: all code categories1253Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
Design Arena: SVG1176Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1196Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
General benchmarks for Kimi K2.7 Code and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
IFBench63.1%22.8%Kimi K2.7 Code
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)79.3%6.7%Kimi K2.7 Code
Surface Evolver Bench48.8%Not measuredOnly Kimi K2.7 Code 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 31 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Kimi K2.7 Code and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkKimi K2.7 CodeLlama 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

Kimi K2.7 Code$0.0029Fits 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

Kimi K2.7 Code$0.059Fits 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

Kimi K2.7 Code$0.230Fits 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 Kimi K2.7 Code and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
SpecificationMoonshotAI Kimi K2.7 CodeMeta Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
MakerMoonshot AIMeta Llama
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedJune 12, 2026September 25, 2024
Context window262K60K
Input $/Mtok$0.95$0.027
Output $/Mtok$4.00$0.201
Coding index53.4Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it40
Cost per solved task$0.35Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Kimi K2.7 Code better than Llama 3.2 1B Instruct for coding?

Only Kimi K2.7 Code has a coding score, 53.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; Llama 3.2 1B Instruct has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Llama 3.2 1B Instruct for output tokens 19.9x cheaper ($0.201 vs $4.00 per million).

Which is cheaper, Kimi K2.7 Code or Llama 3.2 1B Instruct?

Kimi K2.7 Code costs $0.95 per million input tokens and $4.00 per million output tokens; Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs $0.027 and $0.201. Cost per solved task is known for Kimi K2.7 Code only.

Which has the bigger context window, Kimi K2.7 Code or Llama 3.2 1B Instruct?

Kimi K2.7 Code, with 262K tokens against 60K.

How many benchmarks is the Kimi K2.7 Code vs Llama 3.2 1B Instruct comparison based on?

9 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Kimi K2.7 Code's coding index rests on 4 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