Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct vs Muse Wonder

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs 99.5x less per output token than Muse Wonder ($0.201 vs $20.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 24 benchmarks have a result for both.

Llama 3.2 1B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
9.6
Output $/M
$0.201
0
Muse WonderMeta
Coding
71.9
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$20.00
24
vs boards won of 24 shared

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct or Muse Wonder: which to pick

Only Muse Wonder has a coding score, 71.9 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 99.5x cheaper ($0.201 vs $20.00 per million).

Shared results
24
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct only
14
Muse Wonder only
36
Like-for-like categories
5 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, Muse Wonder 71.9 from 3 benchmarks.
Widest category
Knowledge, 78.0 points apart on average over 4 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena Text: Chinese: Llama 3.2 1B Instruct 959 against Muse Wonder 1537, 89.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct $0.201 against Muse Wonder $20.00 per million output tokens, 99.5x apart.
Context window
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct takes 60K tokens, Muse Wonder 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 InstructBarsMuse WonderTies
Coding02
Reasoning04
Math02
Knowledge04
General012
All shared boards024
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
Coding benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructMuse WonderLeader
LMArena WebDevNot measured1652Only Muse Wonder measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)Not measured49.5%Only Muse Wonder measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured83.1%Only Muse Wonder measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured62.5%Only Muse Wonder measured
IOI (Vals AI)Not measured66.9%Only Muse Wonder measured
SWE-bench Multimodal (Vals AI)Not measured45.6%Only Muse Wonder measured
Vibe Code Bench 1-100 (Vals AI)Not measured26.6%Only Muse Wonder measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)Not measured80.4%Only Muse Wonder measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)1.9%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
SciCodeNot measured60.3%Only Muse Wonder measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)0.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: coding10701522Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: software and IT10561515Muse Wonder
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1641Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1694Only Muse Wonder measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructMuse WonderLeader
AA Intelligence Index4.8Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured161.8Only Muse Wonder measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index14 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructMuse WonderLeader
Design Arena: spreadsheetsNot measured1243Only Muse Wonder measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured56.6%Only Muse Wonder measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured36.3%Only Muse Wonder measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured50.5%Only Muse Wonder measured
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured23.8%Only Muse Wonder measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured67.1%Only Muse Wonder measured
BioMysteryBench (Vals AI)Not measured67.0%Only Muse Wonder measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)Not measured22.9%Only Muse Wonder measured
Vals Science IndexNot measured39.1%Only Muse Wonder measured
CUA-bench (Vals AI)Not measured7.2%Only Muse Wonder measured
τ²-Bench Telecom0.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
BALROG6.6%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$9,432Only Muse Wonder measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)10.8%Not measuredOnly 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 index04
Reasoning benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructMuse WonderLeader
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)Not measured27.5%Only Muse Wonder measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)19.6%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)5.5%50.1%Muse Wonder
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)23.9%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts10441506Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: expert10071513Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English10871506Muse Wonder
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Math benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructMuse WonderLeader
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
ProofBenchNot measured84.0%Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: math10861486Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: mathematical work10981514Muse Wonder
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Knowledge benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructMuse WonderLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)20.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: science10551506Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare10091512Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: legal and government10711505Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: business and finance10001483Muse Wonder
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructMuse WonderLeader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1362Only Muse Wonder measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1379Only Muse Wonder measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1376Only Muse Wonder measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1317Only Muse Wonder measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1427Only Muse Wonder measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1371Only Muse Wonder measured
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index012
General benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Muse Wonder
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructMuse WonderLeader
Vals IndexNot measured64.9%Only Muse Wonder measured
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)Not measured70.2%Only Muse Wonder measured
IFBench22.8%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)6.7%80.7%Muse Wonder
DTBenchNot measured95.2%Only Muse Wonder measured
LMCANot measured56.8%Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text10551502Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: instruction following10311491Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: creative writing10331491Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: English11171507Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: non-English9731492Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: Chinese9591537Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: German1014Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1523Only Muse Wonder measured
LMArena Text: Russian9411522Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: multi-turn10301510Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: longer queries10501493Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: writing and language10301496Muse Wonder
LMArena Text: entertainment and media10251482Muse Wonder
Neither model has a result on the other 27 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 Muse Wonder
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructMuse WonderLeader
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
Muse Wonder$0.014Fits 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
Muse Wonder$0.260Fits 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
Muse Wonder$1.00Fits 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 Muse Wonder
SpecificationMeta Llama 3.2 1B InstructMeta Muse Wonder
MakerMeta LlamaMeta
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedSeptember 25, 2024October 12, 2026
Context window60K1.05M
Input $/Mtok$0.027$4.00
Output $/Mtok$0.201$20.00
Coding indexNot benchmarked71.9
Independent measurements behind it03
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Llama 3.2 1B Instruct better than Muse Wonder for coding?

Only Muse Wonder has a coding score, 71.9 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 99.5x cheaper ($0.201 vs $20.00 per million).

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct or Muse Wonder?

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.201 per million output tokens; Muse Wonder costs $4.00 and $20.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct or Muse Wonder?

Muse Wonder, with 1.05M tokens against 60K.

How many benchmarks is the Llama 3.2 1B Instruct vs Muse Wonder comparison based on?

24 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 Muse Wonder's on 3. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next