Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Meta-llama
Meta-llama
vs
Qwen
Qwen

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct vs Qwen3.5 4B (Non-reasoning)

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

Get our weekly newsletter on pricing changes, new releases, and tools.

OpenClaw

Deploy OpenClaw in Under 1 Minute We handle hosting, scaling, and maintenance

Key Takeaways

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Larger context window
  • Better at math

Qwen3.5 4B (Non-reasoning) wins:

  • Faster response time
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding
Price Advantage
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
Benchmark Advantage
Qwen3.5 4B (Non-reasoning)
Context Window
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
Speed
Qwen3.5 4B (Non-reasoning)

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureLlama 3.2 1B InstructQwen3.5 4B (Non-reasoning)
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyLlama 3.2 1B InstructQwen3.5 4B (Non-reasoning)
LicenseOpen SourceOpen Source
AuthorMeta-llamaQwen
ReleasedSep 2024Unknown

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Qwen3.5 4B (Non-reasoning) Modalities

Input
Output

Related Comparisons

Compare Llama 3.2 1B Instruct with:

Compare Qwen3.5 4B (Non-reasoning) with:

Frequently Asked Questions

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct has cheaper input pricing at $0.02/M tokens. Llama 3.2 1B Instruct has cheaper output pricing at $0.02/M tokens.
Qwen3.5 4B (Non-reasoning) scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 13.7, compared to Llama 3.2 1B Instruct's score of 0.6.
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct has a 60,000 token context window, while Qwen3.5 4B (Non-reasoning) has a unknown token context window.
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct does not support vision. Qwen3.5 4B (Non-reasoning) does not support vision.