Qwen Turbo vs Llama-3.2-1B
Qwen Turbo comes out ahead, 48 to 34 on our weighted score.
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen Turbo
48/100- ECI—
- Price$0.05 / $0.20
- Context1M
MetaLlama-3.2-1B
34/100- ECI102.0
- Price$0.064 / $0.15
- Context131K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Qwen Turbo is our pick
Qwen Turbo is the better all-round choice, scoring 48/100 against Llama-3.2-1B (34). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%. Capability uses the average of shared benchmarks (GPQA Diamond and OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025), because Qwen Turbo has no Capabilities Index score yet.
- CapabilityQwen TurboShared benchmarks: Qwen Turbo 24.0% · Llama-3.2-1B 12.2%
- Lowest priceLlama-3.2-1BLlama-3.2-1B $0.085 · Qwen Turbo $0.087 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen TurboQwen Turbo 1,000,000 · Llama-3.2-1B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsQwen Turbo: Text · Llama-3.2-1B: Text
- Self-hostingLlama-3.2-1BPublishes downloadable weights (Llama 3.2 Community License)
| Measure | Weight | Qwen Turbo | Llama-3.2-1B |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityShared benchmarks | 50% | 24 | 12 |
| Price | 25% | 100 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 35 | 0 |
| Context window | 10% | 60 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 48/100 | 34/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Qwen TurboAlibaba (Qwen) | Llama-3.2-1BMeta |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | 102.0 |
| ECI rank | — | #147 of 148 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 41.8% (best) | 23.9% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 6.1% (best) | 0.6% |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.05 (best) | $0.064 |
| Output | $0.20 | $0.15 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.087 | $0.085 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Alibaba API | Median of 2 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 16,384 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | No |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | OpenLlama 3.2 Community License |
| API model ID | qwen-turbo | — |
| API providers | 3 (best) | 2 |
| Released | Nov 1, 2024 | Sep 25, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Apr 2024 | Dec 2023 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Qwen Turbo$0.90
- Llama-3.2-1B$0.936
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen Turbo or Llama-3.2-1B?
Qwen Turbo is the better all-round choice, scoring 48/100 against Llama-3.2-1B (34). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%. Capability uses the average of shared benchmarks (GPQA Diamond and OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025), because Qwen Turbo has no Capabilities Index score yet.
Which is cheaper, Qwen Turbo or Llama-3.2-1B?
Llama-3.2-1B is cheaper at $0.064 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers). Qwen Turbo costs $0.05 input / $0.20 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.085 per million tokens for Llama-3.2-1B versus $0.087 for Qwen Turbo (1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Not every model here has a Capabilities Index score, so we compare the average of shared benchmarks (GPQA Diamond and OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025): Qwen Turbo 24.0% and Llama-3.2-1B 12.2%. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Qwen Turbo 41.8%, Llama-3.2-1B 23.9%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Qwen Turbo 6.1%, Llama-3.2-1B 0.6%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen Turbo and Llama-3.2-1B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Qwen Turbo leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Note that Llama-3.2-1B does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen Turbo has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 131,072 for Llama-3.2-1B. Maximum output per response: Qwen Turbo up to 16,384, Llama-3.2-1B up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen Turbo accepts text; Llama-3.2-1B accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Llama-3.2-1B publishes its weights (Llama 3.2 Community License) and can be self-hosted; Qwen Turbo is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen Turbo is the newest, released Nov 1, 2024. Llama-3.2-1B came out Sep 25, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen Turbo Apr 2024, Llama-3.2-1B Dec 2023.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Gemma 3 12B ITThree-way comparison
- Qwen Turbo vs Gemma 3 12B ITGoogle · ECI 123.5
- Qwen Turbo vs Claude Haiku 3.5Anthropic · ECI 127.2
- Qwen Turbo vs GPT-4o miniOpenAI · ECI 126.6
- Qwen Turbo vs GLM-4.7-FlashZ.ai (Zhipu)
- Llama-3.2-1B vs Ministral 8B InstructMistral AI
- Llama-3.2-1B vs Qwen2.5-Coder-0.5BAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 88.2
