Model comparison

GPT-5.2 Pro vs Llama 3.2 1B

GPT-5.2 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.3 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 819× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.2 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 12, 2026. 1 shared benchmarks.

GPT-5.2 Pro OpenAI

52.3

Rank #39 Reported

Llama 3.2 1B

Summary

They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. GPT-5.2 Pro scores higher in 2 categories and Llama 3.2 1B in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.2 Pro leads 65.3 to 10.4.
Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper at $0.027 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $21 / $168 for GPT-5.2 Pro.
GPT-5.2 Pro accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 60K.
Llama 3.2 1B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-5.2 Pro and Llama 3.2 1B specifications
	GPT-5.2 Pro	Llama 3.2 1B
Provider	OpenAI	Meta
Noometry Index	52.3	20.1
Released	2025-12-11	2024-09-24
Weights	Proprietary	Open
Context window	400K	60K
Max output	128K	54K
Input $ / M tokens	$21	$0.027
Output $ / M tokens	$168	$0.20
Results tracked	8	22

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.2 Pro	Llama 3.2 1B
BigCodeBench Instruct	—	8.2%
LMArena Coding	—	1070
BigCodeBench Complete	—	11.3%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.2 Pro	Llama 3.2 1B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard	—	10.8%
BALROG	—	6.6%

Reasoning GPT-5.2 Pro leads

GPT-5.2 Pro: 51.5 (#33), Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.2 Pro	Llama 3.2 1B
Epoch Capabilities Index	155.4	101.99
ARC-AGI-2	54.2%	—
SimpleBench	57.4%	—
NYT Connections (extended)	79.3%	—
ARC-AGI-1	90.5%	—
Chess Puzzles	—	0%
LMArena Hard Prompts	—	1044

Math GPT-5.2 Pro leads

GPT-5.2 Pro: 65.3 (#29), Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.2 Pro	Llama 3.2 1B
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)	74%	—
FrontierMath Tier 4	46%	—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	—	0.6%
LMArena Math	—	1086
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)	31.3%	—

Knowledge Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.2 Pro	Llama 3.2 1B
GPQA Diamond	—	23.9%
LMArena Expert	—	1007

Multilingual Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.2 Pro	Llama 3.2 1B
LMArena Non-English	—	973
LMArena Chinese	—	959
LMArena German	—	1014
LMArena Russian	—	941

Instruction Following Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.2 Pro	Llama 3.2 1B
LMArena Instruction Following	—	1031

Long Context Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.2 Pro	Llama 3.2 1B
LMArena Longer Query	—	1050

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	GPT-5.2 Pro	Llama 3.2 1B
LMArena Text	—	1055
LMArena Creative Writing	—	1033
EQ-Bench Creative Writing	—	200
LMArena Multi-Turn	—	1030

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-5.2 Pro better than Llama 3.2 1B?

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.2 Pro or Llama 3.2 1B?

Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper. It lists at $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; GPT-5.2 Pro lists at $21 and $168.

Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-5.2 Pro does, with 400K tokens against 60K.

How many benchmarks do GPT-5.2 Pro and Llama 3.2 1B share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. GPT-5.2 Pro has 8 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 1B has 22.