Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct vs LongCat 2.0

LongCat 2.0 leads Llama 3.2 1B Instruct on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 19.1 to 4.8, and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs 6.0x less per output token ($0.201 vs $1.20 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 4 benchmarks have a result for both.

Llama 3.2 1B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
9.6
Output $/M
$0.201
0
LongCat 2.0Meituan
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.20
4
vs boards won of 4 shared

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct or LongCat 2.0: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Llama 3.2 1B Instruct for output tokens 6.0x cheaper ($0.201 vs $1.20 per million) and work measured by AA Intelligence Index or GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Shared results
4
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct only
34
LongCat 2.0 only
4
Like-for-like categories
3 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 3.2 1B Instruct not benchmarked, LongCat 2.0 not benchmarked.
Widest category
General, 58.3 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run): Llama 3.2 1B Instruct 19.6% against LongCat 2.0 78.0%, 58.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct $0.201 against LongCat 2.0 $1.20 per million output tokens, 6.0x apart.
Context window
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct takes 60K tokens, LongCat 2.0 1.05M.

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 3.2 1B InstructBarsLongCat 2.0Ties
Intelligence01
Reasoning02
General01
All shared boards04
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index7 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and LongCat 2.0
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructLongCat 2.0Leader
AA Coding IndexNot measured45.3Only LongCat 2.0 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)1.9%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
SciCodeNot measured36.3%Only LongCat 2.0 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)0.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
ALE-BenchNot measured793.5Only LongCat 2.0 measured
LMArena Text: coding1070Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1056Not measuredOnly 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 index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and LongCat 2.0
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructLongCat 2.0Leader
AA Intelligence Index4.819.1LongCat 2.0
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and LongCat 2.0
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructLongCat 2.0Leader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured14.0Only LongCat 2.0 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom0.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
BALROG6.6%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)10.8%Not measuredOnly 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 index02
Reasoning benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and LongCat 2.0
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructLongCat 2.0Leader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)19.6%78.0%LongCat 2.0
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)5.5%33.7%LongCat 2.0
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)23.9%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1044Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: expert1007Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1087Not measuredOnly 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, none shared
Math benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and LongCat 2.0
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructLongCat 2.0Leader
AA Math Index0.0Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)0.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
OTIS Mock AIME0.6%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: math1086Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1098Not measuredOnly 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, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and LongCat 2.0
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructLongCat 2.0Leader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)20.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: science1055Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1009Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1071Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1000Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and LongCat 2.0
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructLongCat 2.0Leader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
General benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and LongCat 2.0
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructLongCat 2.0Leader
IFBench22.8%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)6.7%65.0%LongCat 2.0
LMArena Text1055Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1031Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1033Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: English1117Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: non-English973Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Chinese959Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: German1014Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Russian941Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1030Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1050Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1030Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1025Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 32 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and LongCat 2.0
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructLongCat 2.0Leader
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$0.0001Fits in one request
LongCat 2.0$0.0009Fits in one request

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct$0.0020Fits in one request
LongCat 2.0$0.019Fits in one request

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct$0.0074Exceeds the context window
LongCat 2.0$0.072Fits in one request

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 3.2 1B Instruct and LongCat 2.0
SpecificationMeta Llama 3.2 1B InstructMeituan LongCat 2.0
MakerMeta LlamaMeituan
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 25, 2024July 20, 2026
Context window60K1.05M
Input $/Mtok$0.027$0.30
Output $/Mtok$0.201$1.20
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Llama 3.2 1B Instruct better than LongCat 2.0 for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Llama 3.2 1B Instruct for output tokens 6.0x cheaper ($0.201 vs $1.20 per million) and work measured by AA Intelligence Index or GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct or LongCat 2.0?

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.201 per million output tokens; LongCat 2.0 costs $0.30 and $1.20. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct or LongCat 2.0?

LongCat 2.0, with 1.05M tokens against 60K.

How many benchmarks is the Llama 3.2 1B Instruct vs LongCat 2.0 comparison based on?

4 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Llama 3.2 1B Instruct's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and LongCat 2.0's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next