Llama 3.2 1B Instruct vs Sonar Reasoning Pro
Updated October 21, 2026. 1 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 39.8x less, and where the benchmark that matters is AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 1
- Llama 3.2 1B Instruct only
- 36
- Sonar Reasoning Pro only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 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
Sonar Reasoning Pro
Sonar Reasoning Pro leads, 11.8 against 4.8.
Same board, both measured
Long documents
Listed context window
Sonar Reasoning Pro
Sonar Reasoning Pro takes 128K tokens against 60K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct $0.0001, Sonar Reasoning Pro $0.0060 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Llama 3.2 1B Instruct not benchmarked, Sonar Reasoning Pro not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Intelligence, 7.0 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- AA Intelligence Index: Llama 3.2 1B Instruct 4.8 against Sonar Reasoning Pro 11.8, 7.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Llama 3.2 1B Instruct $0.201 against Sonar Reasoning Pro $8.00 per million output tokens, 39.8x apart.
- Context window
- Llama 3.2 1B Instruct takes 60K tokens, Sonar Reasoning Pro 128K.
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 | Sonar Reasoning Pro | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 1 |
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Sonar Reasoning Pro | 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 | Sonar Reasoning Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 4.8 | 11.8 | Sonar Reasoning Pro |
| 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 | Sonar Reasoning Pro | 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 | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Sonar Reasoning Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 19.6% | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 5.5% | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| 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 | Sonar Reasoning Pro | 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 | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Sonar Reasoning Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 20.0% | Not measured | Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured |
| 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 | Sonar Reasoning Pro | 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 | Sonar Reasoning Pro | 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 | Sonar Reasoning Pro | 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 | Perplexity Sonar Reasoning Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Meta Llama | Perplexity |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | September 25, 2024 | March 7, 2025 |
| Context window | 60K | 128K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.027 | $2.00 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.201 | $8.00 |
| 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 Sonar Reasoning Pro 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 39.8x less, and where the benchmark that matters is AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct or Sonar Reasoning Pro?
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.201 per million output tokens; Sonar Reasoning Pro costs $2.00 and $8.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct or Sonar Reasoning Pro?
Sonar Reasoning Pro, with 128K tokens against 60K.
How many benchmarks is the Llama 3.2 1B Instruct vs Sonar Reasoning Pro comparison based on?
1 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 Sonar Reasoning Pro's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.