Llama 3.2 1B Instruct vs Extract
Updated October 21, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- 4.8
- Output $/M
- $0.201
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- No data
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct or Extract: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
No benchmark has tested both yet. Llama 3.2 1B Instruct has results on LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run), Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) and LMArena Text: coding; Extract has none yet. Compare them on price and context instead.
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
No call
Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct has a AA Intelligence Index result, 4.8.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Extract
Extract takes 1M tokens against 60K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Extract
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct $0.0001, Extract $0.0000 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Llama 3.2 1B Instruct not benchmarked, Extract not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
- Widest single gap
- None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
- Output price
- Llama 3.2 1B Instruct $0.201 against Extract Free per million output tokens.
- Context window
- Llama 3.2 1B Instruct takes 60K tokens, Extract 1M.
Benchmark by benchmark
Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index4 boards measured
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Extract | 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 | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Extract | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 4.8 | Not measured | Only 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 measured
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Extract | 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 measured
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Extract | 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 measured
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Extract | 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 measured
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Extract | 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 | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index14 boards measured
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | Extract | 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 | |||
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
Extract 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 | ScaleDown Extract |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Meta Llama | Scaledown |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | September 25, 2024 | October 13, 2026 |
| Context window | 60K | 1M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.027 | $0.04 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.201 | Free |
| 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 Extract for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
Which is cheaper, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct or Extract?
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.201 per million output tokens; Extract costs $0.04 and Free. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct or Extract?
Extract, with 1M tokens against 60K.
Has any benchmark tested both Llama 3.2 1B Instruct and Extract?
No benchmark has tested both yet. Llama 3.2 1B Instruct has results on LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run), Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) and LMArena Text: coding; Extract has none yet. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 21, 2026.