Compare / EXAONE 4.0 1.2B vs Llama 3.2 1B
EXAONE 4.0 1.2B vs Llama 3.2 1B
Updated November 2026
Verdict
EXAONE 4.0 1.2B scores higher on the Small LM Index: 42.5 vs 8.7. On the 8 benchmarks both labs report, EXAONE 4.0 1.2B wins 7 and Llama 3.2 1B wins 1. Both need about 1.8 GB of memory at 4-bit quantization. Only Llama 3.2 1B has a hosted API on OpenRouter ($0.071 per million tokens); the other has to be self-hosted.
Pick EXAONE 4.0 1.2B if…
- you want the strongest model overall
- you mostly write code
- you need math and reasoning
- you need precise instruction following
- you build agents that call tools
Pick Llama 3.2 1B if…
- you want a hosted API rather than running it yourself
- you work with long documents
- you want the more widely used model (more quantized builds and community support)
Specifications
| EXAONE 4.0 1.2B | Llama 3.2 1B | |
|---|---|---|
| Small LM Index | 42.5 (likely 40–45) | 8.7 (likely 8–9) |
| Lab | LG AI Research (EXAONE) · Rest of Asia | Meta · United States |
| Released | 2025-07-15 | 2024-09-25 |
| Parameters | 1.3B (dense) | 1.2B (dense) |
| Memory at 4-bit | ~1.8 GB | ~1.5 GB |
| Context window | 64K tokens | 128K tokens |
| Input | text | text |
| Reasoning | Hybrid (thinking on/off) | No thinking |
| License | EXAONE License (non-commercial) | Llama 3.2 Community |
| API price / 1M tokens | Self-host only | $0.071 ($0.027 in, $0.20 out) |
| Hugging Face downloads (30 days) | 13.2K | 1.8M |
Benchmarks
Higher is better. Bold marks the winner where both labs report a score. ≈ marks the index model's estimate for a score that wasn't reported, ✓ an independent measurement and * a score measured by another lab.
| Benchmark | EXAONE 4.0 1.2B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU-Pro Knowledge | 58.8✓ | 20.0✓ |
| GPQA Diamond Knowledge | 51.5✓ | 19.6✓ |
| Humanity's Last Exam Reasoning | 6.0✓ | 5.5✓ |
| AIME Math | 50.3✓ | 0.0✓ |
| LiveCodeBench Coding | 51.6✓ | 1.9✓ |
| τ²-Bench Agentic | 16.4✓ | 0.0✓ |
| IFBench Instruction following | 23.0✓ | 22.8✓ |
| MMLU Knowledge | 71.5 | — |
| Multilingual MMLU Multilingual | 62.4 | — |
| IFEval Instruction following | 67.8 | — |
| BFCL Agentic | 52.9 | — |
| MATH-500 Math | — | 14.0✓ |
| HMMT Math | 34.0 | — |
| AA-LCR Long context | 0.0✓ | 6.7✓ |
Scores are mostly reported by each lab with its own settings, so small gaps are noise. See the methodology. Open in the interactive comparison to add more models.
Questions
Which is better, EXAONE 4.0 1.2B or Llama 3.2 1B?
EXAONE 4.0 1.2B scores higher on the Small LM Index: 42.5 vs 8.7. On the 8 benchmarks both labs report, EXAONE 4.0 1.2B wins 7 and Llama 3.2 1B wins 1.
Which is cheaper to run?
Only Llama 3.2 1B has a hosted API on OpenRouter ($0.071 per million tokens); the other has to be self-hosted. Both need about 1.8 GB of memory at 4-bit quantization.
Which has the longer context window?
Llama 3.2 1B has the longer context window: 128K tokens against 64K.
Can I use EXAONE 4.0 1.2B and Llama 3.2 1B commercially?
EXAONE 4.0 1.2B is released under EXAONE License (non-commercial) and Llama 3.2 1B under Llama 3.2 Community. Apache 2.0 and MIT allow commercial use; other licenses can add conditions, so read the license before shipping a product.
Related comparisons
- EXAONE 4.0 1.2B vs LFM3 1.7B
- EXAONE 4.0 1.2B vs Spark-X2.6 1.7B
- EXAONE 4.0 1.2B vs MiniCPM-V 4.6
- EXAONE 4.0 1.2B vs LFM2.5 1.2B Thinking
- EXAONE 4.0 1.2B vs LFM2.5 1.2B Instruct
- LFM2.5 1.2B Thinking vs Llama 3.2 1B
- Llama 3.2 1B vs MiniCPM5 1B
- Llama 3.2 1B vs MiniCPM-V 4.6
- LFM2.5 1.2B Instruct vs Llama 3.2 1B