Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct vs Beam 1.0 501B A23B

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs 5.5x less per output token than Beam 1.0 501B A23B ($0.201 vs $1.10 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 22 benchmarks have a result for both.

Llama 3.2 1B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
9.6
Output $/M
$0.201
0
R Beam 1.0 501B A23BReflection
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.10
22
vs boards won of 22 shared

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct or Beam 1.0 501B A23B: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Llama 3.2 1B Instruct for output tokens 5.5x cheaper ($0.201 vs $1.10 per million) and work measured by LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.

Shared results
22
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct only
16
Beam 1.0 501B A23B only
6
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, Beam 1.0 501B A23B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Coding, 67.2 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena Text: expert: Llama 3.2 1B Instruct 1007 against Beam 1.0 501B A23B 1447, 73.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct $0.201 against Beam 1.0 501B A23B $1.10 per million output tokens, 5.5x apart.
Context window
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct takes 60K tokens, Beam 1.0 501B A23B 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 InstructBarsBeam 1.0 501B A23BTies
Coding02
Reasoning03
Math02
Knowledge04
General011
All shared boards022
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
Coding benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Beam 1.0 501B A23B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructBeam 1.0 501B A23BLeader
LMArena WebDevNot measured1437Only Beam 1.0 501B A23B measured
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: coding10701473Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: software and IT10561461Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1443Only Beam 1.0 501B A23B measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1436Only Beam 1.0 501B A23B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 32 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 Beam 1.0 501B A23B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructBeam 1.0 501B A23BLeader
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 index3 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Beam 1.0 501B A23B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructBeam 1.0 501B A23BLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom0.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
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 38 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
Reasoning benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Beam 1.0 501B A23B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructBeam 1.0 501B A23BLeader
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%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts10441442Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: expert10071447Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English10871451Beam 1.0 501B A23B
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Math benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Beam 1.0 501B A23B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructBeam 1.0 501B A23BLeader
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
LMArena Text: math10861459Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: mathematical work10981475Beam 1.0 501B A23B
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Knowledge benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Beam 1.0 501B A23B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructBeam 1.0 501B A23BLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)20.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: science10551430Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare10091376Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: legal and government10711433Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: business and finance10001430Beam 1.0 501B A23B
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Beam 1.0 501B A23B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructBeam 1.0 501B A23BLeader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1250Only Beam 1.0 501B A23B measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1224Only Beam 1.0 501B A23B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index011
General benchmarks for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Beam 1.0 501B A23B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructBeam 1.0 501B A23BLeader
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
LMArena Text10551425Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: instruction following10311430Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: creative writing10331390Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: English11171436Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: non-English9731413Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: Chinese9591424Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: German1014Not measuredOnly Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1461Only Beam 1.0 501B A23B measured
LMArena Text: Russian9411412Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: multi-turn10301414Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: longer queries10501429Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: writing and language10301400Beam 1.0 501B A23B
LMArena Text: entertainment and media10251399Beam 1.0 501B A23B
Neither model has a result on the other 31 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 Beam 1.0 501B A23B
BenchmarkLlama 3.2 1B InstructBeam 1.0 501B A23BLeader
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
Beam 1.0 501B A23B$0.0009Fits 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
Beam 1.0 501B A23B$0.021Fits 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
Beam 1.0 501B A23B$0.081Fits 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 Beam 1.0 501B A23B
SpecificationMeta Llama 3.2 1B InstructReflection Beam 1.0 501B A23B
MakerMeta LlamaReflection
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 25, 2024October 16, 2026
Context window60K1.05M
Input $/Mtok$0.027$0.35
Output $/Mtok$0.201$1.10
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it01
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Llama 3.2 1B Instruct better than Beam 1.0 501B A23B for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Llama 3.2 1B Instruct for output tokens 5.5x cheaper ($0.201 vs $1.10 per million) and work measured by LMArena Text: coding or LMArena Text: software and IT, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct or Beam 1.0 501B A23B?

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.201 per million output tokens; Beam 1.0 501B A23B costs $0.35 and $1.10. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct or Beam 1.0 501B A23B?

Beam 1.0 501B A23B, with 1.05M tokens against 60K.

How many benchmarks is the Llama 3.2 1B Instruct vs Beam 1.0 501B A23B comparison based on?

22 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 Beam 1.0 501B A23B's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next