Model comparison
Claude 2.1 vs Llama 3.2 1B
Claude 2.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 25.2 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 3 categories and Llama 3.2 1B in 1 category; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Claude 2.1 leads 15.4 to 7.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 33% for Claude 2.1 and 23.9% for Llama 3.2 1B.
- Llama 3.2 1B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 1B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 25.2 | 20.1 |
| Released | 2023-11-21 | 2024-09-24 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 60K |
| Max output | — | 54K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.027 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.20 |
| Results tracked | 7 | 22 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude 2.1 leads
Claude 2.1: 26.2 (#327), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 7.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 8.2% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1070 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 11.3% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 10.8% |
| BALROG | — | 6.6% |
Reasoning Claude 2.1 leads
Claude 2.1: 21.4 (#221), Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.27 | 101.99 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1044 |
| DTBench | 51% | — |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |
Math Too close to call
Claude 2.1: 10.2 (#315), Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | 0.6% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1086 |
Knowledge Claude 2.1 leads
Claude 2.1: 15.4 (#292), Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | 23.9% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1007 |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 973 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 959 |
| LMArena German | — | 1014 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 941 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1031 |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1050 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1055 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1033 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 200 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1030 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 2.1 better than Llama 3.2 1B?
Claude 2.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 25.2 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 2.1 or Llama 3.2 1B better for coding?
Claude 2.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 26.2 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Llama 3.2 1B share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 1B has 22.