Model comparison

Grok 4.6 vs Llama 3.2 11B

Grok 4.6 has enough public results to be ranked (#21); Llama 3.2 11B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.6 xAI

56.9

Rank #21 Confirmed

Llama 3.2 11B Meta

32.1

Unranked Sparse

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Grok 4.6 scores higher in 2 categories and Llama 3.2 11B in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in multimodal, where Grok 4.6 leads 43.6 to 24.4.
  • Llama 3.2 11B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.6 and Llama 3.2 11B specifications
Grok 4.6Llama 3.2 11B
ProviderxAIMeta
Noometry Index56.932.1
Released2026-08-122024-09-24
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window500K—
Max output500K—
Input $ / M tokens$2—
Output $ / M tokens$6—
Results tracked493

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Grok 4.6: 58.5 (#16), Llama 3.2 11B: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4.6Llama 3.2 11B
DeepSWE67.5%—
FrontierCode48%—
CursorBench41.4%—
LMArena WebDev1617—
FrontierSWE25.3%—
SciCode56.5%—
WeirdML67.3%—
LMArena Coding1465—
ALE-Bench1,508—

Agentic & Tool Use Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 39.4 (#27), Llama 3.2 11B: 27.3

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4.6Llama 3.2 11B
APEX-Agents65.3%—
BALROG—16.8%
GDP.pdf17.2%—
Vending-Bench 29,047—

Reasoning Not comparable

Grok 4.6: 61.4 (#20), Llama 3.2 11B: —

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4.6Llama 3.2 11B
ARC-AGI-267.1%—
SimpleBench75.9%—
NYT Connections (extended)80%—
ARC-AGI-187.5%—
CritPt19.7%—
Chess Puzzles40%—
EBR-Bench30.5%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1447—
Mystery Game Puzzles34%—
DTBench97.3%—
LMCA48.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index156.44—

Math Not comparable

Grok 4.6: 67.0 (#24), Llama 3.2 11B: —

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4.6Llama 3.2 11B
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%—
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202599.2%—
ProofBench51%—
LMArena Math1423—

Knowledge Not comparable

Grok 4.6: 63.3 (#20), Llama 3.2 11B: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4.6Llama 3.2 11B
GPQA Diamond94%—
SimpleQA Verified49.3%—
LMArena Expert1467—
MMLU—56.5%

Multimodal Grok 4.6 leads

Grok 4.6: 43.6 (#23), Llama 3.2 11B: 24.4

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4.6Llama 3.2 11B
LMArena Vision1263966
Blueprint-Bench 233.2%—
Furniture Assembly40%—
LMArena Document1452—

Multilingual Not comparable

Grok 4.6: 53.0 (#74), Llama 3.2 11B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4.6Llama 3.2 11B
LMArena Non-English1420—
LMArena Chinese1480—
LMArena French1461—
LMArena German1431—
LMArena Japanese1376—
LMArena Korean1397—
LMArena Russian1422—
LMArena Spanish1404—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Grok 4.6: 75.4 (#63), Llama 3.2 11B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4.6Llama 3.2 11B
LMArena Instruction Following1431—

Long Context Not comparable

Grok 4.6: 44.5 (#66), Llama 3.2 11B: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4.6Llama 3.2 11B
LMArena Longer Query1454—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Grok 4.6: 62.3 (#80), Llama 3.2 11B: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4.6Llama 3.2 11B
LMArena Text1428—
LMArena Creative Writing1428—
LMArena Multi-Turn1425—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.6 better than Llama 3.2 11B?

Grok 4.6 has enough public results to be ranked (#21); Llama 3.2 11B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.6 and Llama 3.2 11B share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Grok 4.6 has 49 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 11B has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper