Llama 3.2 1B Instruct vs Reka Flash 3
Reka Flash 3 leads Llama 3.2 1B Instruct on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 6.4 to 4.8, at about the same output price ($0.20 vs $0.201 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 12 benchmarks have a result for both.
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct or Reka Flash 3: 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 work measured by LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 12
- Llama 3.2 1B Instruct only
- 26
- Reka Flash 3 only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 7 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Reka Flash 3
Reka Flash 3 leads, 6.4 against 4.8.
Same board, both measured
Long documents
Listed context window
Reka Flash 3
Reka Flash 3 takes 66K 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, Reka Flash 3 $0.0002 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Llama 3.2 1B Instruct not benchmarked, Reka Flash 3 not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Knowledge, 46.9 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run): Llama 3.2 1B Instruct 20.0% against Reka Flash 3 66.9%, 46.9 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Llama 3.2 1B Instruct $0.201 against Reka Flash 3 $0.20 per million output tokens, 1.0x apart.
- Context window
- Llama 3.2 1B Instruct takes 60K tokens, Reka Flash 3 66K.
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 | Reka Flash 3 | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 1 | 1 tie | |
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Agentic work | 0 | 1 | 1 tie | |
| Reasoning | 1 | 1 | ||
| Math | 0 | 2 | ||
| Knowledge | 0 | 1 | ||
| General | 1 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 2 | 8 | 2 ties |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Reka Flash 3 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 1.9% | 43.5% | Reka Flash 3 |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 0.0% | 0.0% | Tie |
| 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 35 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Reka Flash 3 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 4.8 | 6.4 | Reka Flash 3 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Reka Flash 3 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 0.0% | 0.0% | Tie |
| BALROG | 6.6% | 29.2% | Reka Flash 3 |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) | 10.8% | Not measured | Only 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 index11
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Reka Flash 3 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 19.6% | 52.9% | Reka Flash 3 |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 5.5% | 4.4% | 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 16 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Reka Flash 3 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | 0.0 | 33.7 | Reka Flash 3 |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 0.0% | 33.7% | Reka Flash 3 |
| 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 | Reka Flash 3 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 20.0% | 66.9% | Reka Flash 3 |
| 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 13 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Reka Flash 3 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Reka Flash 3 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 22.8% | 30.4% | Reka Flash 3 |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 6.7% | 0.0% | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct |
| 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 | Reka Flash 3 | 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 | Reka Flash 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Meta Llama | Reka |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | September 25, 2024 | March 12, 2025 |
| Context window | 60K | 66K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.027 | $0.10 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.201 | $0.20 |
| 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 Reka Flash 3 for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Llama 3.2 1B Instruct for work measured by LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct or Reka Flash 3?
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.201 per million output tokens; Reka Flash 3 costs $0.10 and $0.20. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct or Reka Flash 3?
Reka Flash 3, with 66K tokens against 60K.
How many benchmarks is the Llama 3.2 1B Instruct vs Reka Flash 3 comparison based on?
12 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 Reka Flash 3's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.