Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct vs Qwen-Plus

Updated October 21, 2026. 24 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Llama 3.2 1B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
4.8
Output $/M
$0.201
0
Qwen-PlusQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.78
24
vs boards won of 24 shared

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 3.9x less, and where what matters is LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.

Shared results
24
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct only
13
Qwen-Plus only
4
Like-for-like categories
5 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.

At a glance

Coding index
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct not benchmarked, Qwen-Plus not benchmarked.
Widest category
Knowledge, 50.8 points apart on average over 4 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena Text: Chinese: Llama 3.2 1B Instruct 959 against Qwen-Plus 1347, 57.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct $0.201 against Qwen-Plus $0.78 per million output tokens, 3.9x apart.
Context window
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct takes 60K tokens, Qwen-Plus 1M.

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 InstructBarsQwen-PlusTies
Coding02
Reasoning04
Math03
Knowledge04
General011
All shared boards024
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
Coding benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Qwen-Plus
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructQwen-PlusLeader
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)1.9%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)0.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: coding10701328Qwen-Plus
LMArena Text: software and IT10561343Qwen-Plus
Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Qwen-Plus
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructQwen-PlusLeader
AA Intelligence Index4.8Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
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
Agentic work benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Qwen-Plus
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructQwen-PlusLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom0.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
BALROG6.6%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 index04
Reasoning benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Qwen-Plus
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructQwen-PlusLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)19.6%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)5.5%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)23.9%48.1%Qwen-Plus
LMArena Text: hard prompts10441317Qwen-Plus
LMArena Text: expert10071328Qwen-Plus
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English10871333Qwen-Plus
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
Math benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Qwen-Plus
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructQwen-PlusLeader
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%17.8%Qwen-Plus
MATH level 5Not measured65.3%Only Qwen-Plus measured
LMArena Text: math10861326Qwen-Plus
LMArena Text: mathematical work10981332Qwen-Plus
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 Qwen-Plus
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructQwen-PlusLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)20.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: science10551352Qwen-Plus
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare10091350Qwen-Plus
LMArena Text: legal and government10711349Qwen-Plus
LMArena Text: business and finance10001303Qwen-Plus
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 3.2 1B Instruct and Qwen-Plus
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructQwen-PlusLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index011
General benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Qwen-Plus
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructQwen-PlusLeader
IFBench22.8%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)6.7%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
DTBenchNot measured81.1%Only Qwen-Plus measured
LMCANot measured24.0%Only Qwen-Plus measured
LMArena Text10551326Qwen-Plus
LMArena Text: instruction following10311303Qwen-Plus
LMArena Text: creative writing10331292Qwen-Plus
LMArena Text: English11171339Qwen-Plus
LMArena Text: non-English9731310Qwen-Plus
LMArena Text: Chinese9591347Qwen-Plus
LMArena Text: German1014Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1251Only Qwen-Plus measured
LMArena Text: Russian9411323Qwen-Plus
LMArena Text: multi-turn10301336Qwen-Plus
LMArena Text: longer queries10501324Qwen-Plus
LMArena Text: writing and language10301296Qwen-Plus
LMArena Text: entertainment and media10251270Qwen-Plus
Neither model has a result on the other 29 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 Qwen-Plus
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructQwen-PlusLeader
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
Qwen-Plus$0.0006Fits 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
Qwen-Plus$0.015Fits 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
Qwen-Plus$0.060Fits 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 Qwen-Plus
SpecificationMeta Llama 3.2 1B InstructQwen-Plus
MakerMeta LlamaQwen
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedSeptember 25, 2024February 1, 2025
Context window60K1M
Input $/Mtok$0.027$0.26
Output $/Mtok$0.201$0.78
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 Qwen-Plus 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 3.9x less, and where what matters is LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct or Qwen-Plus?

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.201 per million output tokens; Qwen-Plus costs $0.26 and $0.78. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct or Qwen-Plus?

Qwen-Plus, with 1M tokens against 60K.

How many benchmarks is the Llama 3.2 1B Instruct vs Qwen-Plus comparison based on?

24 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 Qwen-Plus's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next