Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct vs Llama 3.2 1B Instruct

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct leads Llama 3.2 1B Instruct on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 6.9 to 4.8, and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct costs 2.5x less per output token ($0.08 vs $0.201 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 38 benchmarks have a result for both.

Llama 3.1 8B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
17.9
Output $/M
$0.08
37
Llama 3.2 1B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
9.6
Output $/M
$0.201
1
vs boards won of 38 shared

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct 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 Llama 3.1 8B Instruct for output tokens 2.5x cheaper ($0.08 vs $0.201 per million) and a larger context window (131K against 60K tokens).

Shared results
38
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct only
13
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct only
0
Like-for-like categories
7 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
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct not benchmarked, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
Knowledge, 25.9 points apart on average over 5 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct 1182 against Llama 3.2 1B Instruct 1009, 28.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct $0.08 against Llama 3.2 1B Instruct $0.201 per million output tokens, 2.5x apart.
Context window
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct takes 131K 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
CategoryLlama 3.1 8B InstructBarsLlama 3.2 1B InstructTies
Coding40
Intelligence10
Agentic work30
Reasoning51
Math50
Knowledge50
General140
All shared boards371
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index40
Coding benchmarks for Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 8B InstructLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
AA Coding Index5.4Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)11.6%1.9%Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)0.8%0.0%Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
WeirdML1.7%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: coding11951070Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
LMArena Text: software and IT11951056Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 8B InstructLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index6.94.8Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
Epoch Capabilities Index116.5Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
Agentic work benchmarks for Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 8B InstructLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom16.4%0.0%Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
BALROG15.1%6.6%Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)25.8%10.8%Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index51
Reasoning benchmarks for Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 8B InstructLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)25.9%19.6%Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)5.3%5.5%Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)27.0%23.9%Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
LMArena Text: hard prompts11751044Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
LMArena Text: expert11441007Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English11961087Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Math benchmarks for Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 8B InstructLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
AA Math Index4.30.0Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)4.3%0.0%Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME1.7%0.6%Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
MATH level 522.9%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
GSM8K82.4%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: math11791086Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
LMArena Text: mathematical work11801098Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Knowledge benchmarks for Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 8B InstructLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)47.6%20.0%Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
MMLU56.1%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: science11931055Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare11821009Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
LMArena Text: legal and government12061071Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
LMArena Text: business and finance11661000Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 8B InstructLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index140
General benchmarks for Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 8B InstructLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
IFBench28.6%22.8%Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)18.0%6.7%Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
DTBench50.9%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMCA5.4%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
PIQA81.2%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text11871055Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
LMArena Text: instruction following11591031Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
LMArena Text: creative writing11541033Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
LMArena Text: English12181117Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
LMArena Text: non-English1148973Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
LMArena Text: Chinese1151959Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
LMArena Text: German11441014Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
LMArena Text: Japanese1061Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Korean1053Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: French1178Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1169Not measuredOnly Llama 3.1 8B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Russian1158941Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
LMArena Text: multi-turn11721030Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
LMArena Text: longer queries11811050Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
LMArena Text: writing and language11621030Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
LMArena Text: entertainment and media11451025Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkLlama 3.1 8B InstructLlama 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

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct$0.0001Fits in one request
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct$0.0001Fits in one request

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct$0.0027Fits 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

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct$0.011Exceeds 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 Llama 3.1 8B Instruct and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
SpecificationMeta Llama 3.1 8B InstructMeta Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
MakerMeta LlamaMeta Llama
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedJuly 23, 2024September 25, 2024
Context window131K60K
Input $/Mtok$0.05$0.027
Output $/Mtok$0.08$0.201
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Llama 3.1 8B Instruct 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 Llama 3.1 8B Instruct for output tokens 2.5x cheaper ($0.08 vs $0.201 per million) and a larger context window (131K against 60K tokens).

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct or Llama 3.2 1B Instruct?

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct costs $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.08 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, Llama 3.1 8B Instruct or Llama 3.2 1B Instruct?

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct, with 131K tokens against 60K.

How many benchmarks is the Llama 3.1 8B Instruct vs Llama 3.2 1B Instruct comparison based on?

38 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Llama 3.1 8B Instruct'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