Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct vs Qwen3.6 27B

Qwen3.6 27B leads Llama 3.2 1B Instruct on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 21.4 to 4.8, and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs 13.4x less per output token ($0.201 vs $2.70 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 9 benchmarks have a result for both.

Llama 3.2 1B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
9.6
Output $/M
$0.201
0
Qwen3.6 27BQwen
Coding
36.8
Overall
45.3
Output $/M
$2.70
9
vs boards won of 9 shared

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct or Qwen3.6 27B: which to pick

Only Qwen3.6 27B has a coding score, 36.8 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 13.4x cheaper ($0.201 vs $2.70 per million).

Shared results
9
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct only
29
Qwen3.6 27B only
15
Like-for-like categories
6 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, Qwen3.6 27B 36.8 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Agentic work, 94.2 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: Llama 3.2 1B Instruct 0.0% against Qwen3.6 27B 94.2%, 94.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct $0.201 against Qwen3.6 27B $2.70 per million output tokens, 13.4x apart.
Context window
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct takes 60K tokens, Qwen3.6 27B 262K.

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 InstructBarsQwen3.6 27BTies
Coding01
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning03
Math01
General02
All shared boards09
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
Coding benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructQwen3.6 27BLeader
AA Coding IndexNot measured53.7Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured70.0%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured11.9%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)1.9%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
SciCodeNot measured42.8%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)0.0%34.8%Qwen3.6 27B
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 31 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructQwen3.6 27BLeader
AA Intelligence Index4.821.4Qwen3.6 27B
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured146.2Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructQwen3.6 27BLeader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured18.5Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
τ²-Bench Telecom0.0%94.2%Qwen3.6 27B
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 index03
Reasoning benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructQwen3.6 27BLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)19.6%84.2%Qwen3.6 27B
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)5.5%23.1%Qwen3.6 27B
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)23.9%85.9%Qwen3.6 27B
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured7.0%Only Qwen3.6 27B 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 15 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Math benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructQwen3.6 27BLeader
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%91.1%Qwen3.6 27B
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured35.1%Only Qwen3.6 27B 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 7 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructQwen3.6 27BLeader
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured53.2%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured62.3%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured71.3%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured68.3%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
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 9 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 Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructQwen3.6 27BLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
General benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructQwen3.6 27BLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured45.6%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
IFBench22.8%67.6%Qwen3.6 27B
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)6.7%77.3%Qwen3.6 27B
DTBenchNot measured78.1%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
LMCANot measured34.5%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
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 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 Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructQwen3.6 27BLeader
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
Qwen3.6 27B$0.0018Fits 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
Qwen3.6 27B$0.031Fits 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
Qwen3.6 27B$0.117Fits 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 Qwen3.6 27B
SpecificationMeta Llama 3.2 1B InstructQwen3.6 27B
MakerMeta LlamaQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 25, 2024April 27, 2026
Context window60K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.027$0.45
Output $/Mtok$0.201$2.70
Coding indexNot benchmarked36.8
Independent measurements behind it02
Cost per solved taskNot computable$1.30
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Llama 3.2 1B Instruct better than Qwen3.6 27B for coding?

Only Qwen3.6 27B has a coding score, 36.8 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 13.4x cheaper ($0.201 vs $2.70 per million).

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct or Qwen3.6 27B?

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.201 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B costs $0.45 and $2.70. Cost per solved task is known for Qwen3.6 27B only.

Which has the bigger context window, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct or Qwen3.6 27B?

Qwen3.6 27B, with 262K tokens against 60K.

How many benchmarks is the Llama 3.2 1B Instruct vs Qwen3.6 27B comparison based on?

9 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 Qwen3.6 27B's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next