Compare / Nova Micro 1.0 vs Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
Nova Micro 1.0 vs Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 21 results on 3 sources that measured both models.
Nova Micro 1.0 or Llama 3.2 1B Instruct? The short answer
- Nova Micro 1.0 is cheaper: $0.061 against $0.071 per million tokens, 13% less.
- Nova Micro 1.0 scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 5.9 against 4.8.
- On our business benchmarks, Nova Micro 1.0 ranks higher for agents and tool use, reasoning and knowledge and writing.
At a glance
| Nova Micro 1.0 | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $0.035 in · $0.14 out | $0.027 in · $0.20 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $0.061 | $0.071 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $0.061 (Amazon Bedrock) | – |
| Intelligence Index | 5.9 | 4.8 |
| Spring Prompt overall | – | – |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 256 | – |
| Context window | 128,000 tokens | 60,000 tokens |
| Weights | Closed | Open |
| Developer based in | the US | the US |
Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.
Which is better for what
Each model's rank among models available today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. The better rank is in green.
| Use case | Nova Micro 1.0 | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls | 156 of 161 | 161 of 161 |
| Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge | 181 of 195 | 189 of 195 |
| WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality | 184 of 187 | 186 of 187 |
| Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers | 20 of 153 | not measured |
Every shared result
| Benchmark | Metric | Nova Micro 1.0 | Llama 3.2 1B Instruct |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Business, management and financeArena rating | 1,233 | 1,070 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Creative writingArena rating | 1,197 | 1,083 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Expert promptsArena rating | 1,244 | 1,082 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Instruction followingArena rating | 1,215 | 1,086 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | OverallArena rating | 1,241 | 1,111 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Writing, literature and languageArena rating | 1,223 | 1,076 |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score | 5.90 | 4.80 |
| Artificial Analysisreported | GPQA Diamond% of questions | 35.8% | 19.6% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Humanity's Last Exam% of questions | 4.6% | 5.5% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | IFBench% of instructions | 29.4% | 22.8% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions | 13.0% | 6.7% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Terminal-Bench Hard% of tasks | 1.5% | 0.0% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Τ²-bench telecom% of tasks | 14.0% | 0.0% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Irrelevance detection% correct | 70.7% | 51.6% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Memory% correct | 2.4% | 3.2% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Multi-turn tasks% correct | 1.4% | 0.0% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Overall accuracy% correct | 22.3% | 10.8% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Relevance detection% correct | 81.2% | 43.8% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Single-turn calls (curated)% correct | 74.1% | 38.4% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Single-turn calls (user-contributed)% correct | 66.3% | 11.8% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Web search% correct | 1.5% | 0.0% |
Bold green marks the better value on that metric. Where a source reports ranges that overlap, the difference may not be meaningful; see the benchmark page for ranges.
Quick answers
Is Nova Micro 1.0 better than Llama 3.2 1B Instruct?
It depends on the task. Among models available today, on our benchmarks and licensed sources, Nova Micro 1.0 ranks higher for agents and tool use, reasoning and knowledge and writing.
Which is cheaper, Nova Micro 1.0 or Llama 3.2 1B Instruct?
Nova Micro 1.0 costs $0.061 per million tokens (three input to one output), against $0.071 for Llama 3.2 1B Instruct.
Run Nova Micro 1.0 and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.