Llama 3.2 1B Instruct vs Saba
Updated October 21, 2026. 4 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
Decision reading
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct has the edge where output tokens cost 3.0x less, and where the context window is larger, 60K against 33K tokens.
- Shared results
- 4
- Llama 3.2 1B Instruct only
- 33
- Saba only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 3 of 9
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.
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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Saba
Saba leads, 6.5 against 4.8.
Same board, both measured
Long documents
Listed context window
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct takes 60K tokens against 33K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct $0.0001, Saba $0.0005 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Llama 3.2 1B Instruct not benchmarked, Saba not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Knowledge, 41.1 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run): Llama 3.2 1B Instruct 20.0% against Saba 61.1%, 41.1 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Llama 3.2 1B Instruct $0.201 against Saba $0.60 per million output tokens, 3.0x apart.
- Context window
- Llama 3.2 1B Instruct takes 60K tokens, Saba 33K.
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.
| Category | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Bars | Saba | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 1 | 1 | ||
| Knowledge | 0 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 1 | 3 |
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Saba | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 1.9% | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 0.0% | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1070 | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1056 | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Saba | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 4.8 | 6.5 | Saba |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Saba | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 0.0% | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| BALROG | 6.6% | Not measured | Only 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 index11
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Saba | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 19.6% | 42.4% | Saba |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 5.5% | 4.3% | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 23.9% | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1044 | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1007 | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1087 | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Saba | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | 0.0 | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 0.0% | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 0.6% | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1086 | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1098 | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Saba | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 20.0% | 61.1% | Saba |
| LMArena Text: science | 1055 | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1009 | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1071 | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1000 | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| 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
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Saba | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index14 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Saba | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 22.8% | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 6.7% | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text | 1055 | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1031 | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1033 | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1117 | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 973 | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 959 | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: German | 1014 | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 941 | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1030 | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1050 | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1030 | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1025 | Not measured | Only 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
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Saba | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
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.
| Specification | Meta Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Mistral Saba |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Meta Llama | Mistral AI |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | September 25, 2024 | February 17, 2025 |
| Context window | 60K | 33K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.027 | $0.20 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.201 | $0.60 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Llama 3.2 1B Instruct better than Saba for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Llama 3.2 1B Instruct has the edge where output tokens cost 3.0x less, and where the context window is larger, 60K against 33K tokens.
Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct or Saba?
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.201 per million output tokens; Saba costs $0.20 and $0.60. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct or Saba?
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct, with 60K tokens against 33K.
How many benchmarks is the Llama 3.2 1B Instruct vs Saba comparison based on?
4 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Llama 3.2 1B Instruct's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Saba's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.