The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Beam 1.0 vs Llama 3.2 11B Instruct

Beam 1.0 leads the LLM Stats Score 44.6 to -1.8. Llama 3.2 11B Instruct is 12.0x cheaper per token.

Reflection AI · Meta · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Beam 1.0 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 44.6 to -1.8, ranking #46 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Beam 1.0 wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, Llama 3.2 11B Instruct is roughly 12.0x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Beam 1.0 also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Beam 1.0

  • overall performance matters — it scores 44.6 and ranks #46 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026

Choose Llama 3.2 11B Instruct

  • cost matters — it's about 12.0x cheaper per token

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Core performance indexes
44.6
#46
-1.8
#360
45.5
#37
-1.3
#351
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 1
0 of 1
Input price
$0.40 / M
$0.05 / M
Output price
$1.20 / M
$0.05 / M
Context window
1,048,576
128,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

2 shared
Index
Beam 1.0
Llama 3.2 11B Instruct
35.1#45
1.8#307
15.9#105
-0.3#203
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

22 reported for Beam 1.0 · 11 for Llama 3.2 11B Instruct

1 shared

Beam 1.0 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (GPQA), while Llama 3.2 11B Instruct is better at 0 benchmarks.

Beam 1.0 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Thu Oct 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Llama 3.2 11B Instruct costs less

For input processing, Beam 1.0 ($0.40/1M tokens) is 8.0x more expensive than Llama 3.2 11B Instruct ($0.05/1M tokens).

For output processing, Beam 1.0 ($1.20/1M tokens) is 24.0x more expensive than Llama 3.2 11B Instruct ($0.05/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Beam 1.0 is more expensive than Llama 3.2 11B Instruct.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Thu Oct 22 2026 • llm-stats.com
Reflection AI
Beam 1.0
Input tokens$0.40
Output tokens$1.20
Best providerTogether
Meta
Llama 3.2 11B Instruct
Input tokens$0.05
Output tokens$0.05
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

490.7B diff

Beam 1.0 has 490.7B more parameters than Llama 3.2 11B Instruct, making it 4629.2% larger.

Reflection AI
Beam 1.0
501.3Bparameters
Meta
Llama 3.2 11B Instruct
10.6Bparameters
501.3B
Beam 1.0
10.6B
Llama 3.2 11B Instruct

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Beam 1.0 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Llama 3.2 11B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Beam 1.0 can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Llama 3.2 11B Instruct is limited to 128,000 tokens.

Reflection AI
Beam 1.0
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Meta
Llama 3.2 11B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Thu Oct 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Llama 3.2 11B Instruct supports multimodal inputs, whereas Beam 1.0 does not.

Llama 3.2 11B Instruct can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Beam 1.0

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Llama 3.2 11B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Beam 1.0 is licensed under Apache 2.0, while Llama 3.2 11B Instruct uses Llama 3.2 Community License.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Beam 1.0

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Llama 3.2 11B Instruct

Llama 3.2 Community License

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Beam 1.0 was released on 2026-10-16, while Llama 3.2 11B Instruct was released on 2024-09-25.

Beam 1.0 is 25 months newer than Llama 3.2 11B Instruct.

Beam 1.0

Oct 16, 2026

3 days ago

2.1yr newer
Llama 3.2 11B Instruct

Sep 25, 2024

2.1 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Beam 1.0 has a knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-30, while Llama 3.2 11B Instruct has a cutoff of 2023-12-31.

Beam 1.0 has more recent training data (up to 2026-06-30), making it potentially better informed about events through that date compared to Llama 3.2 11B Instruct (2023-12-31).

Beam 1.0

Jun 2026

2.5 yr newer
Llama 3.2 11B Instruct

Dec 2023

Provider Availability

Beam 1.0 is available from Together, Reflection AI. Llama 3.2 11B Instruct is available from DeepInfra, Sambanova, Bedrock, Groq, Together, Fireworks.

Beam 1.0

together logo
Together
Input Price:Input: $0.40/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M
reflection logo
Unknown Organization

Llama 3.2 11B Instruct

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.05/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.05/1M
sambanova logo
Sambanova
Input Price:Input: $0.15/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.30/1M
bedrock logo
AWS Bedrock
Input Price:Input: $0.16/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.16/1M
groq logo
Groq
Input Price:Input: $0.18/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.18/1M
together logo
Together
Input Price:Input: $0.18/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.18/1M
fireworks logo
Fireworks
Input Price:Input: $0.20/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.20/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Beam 1.0 and Llama 3.2 11B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Beam 1.0
✓ Preferred
Llama 3.2 11B Instruct
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Beam 1.0 vs Llama 3.2 11B Instruct.

Which is better, Beam 1.0 or Llama 3.2 11B Instruct?

Beam 1.0 leads the LLM Stats Score 44.6 to -1.8. Beam 1.0 is made by Reflection AI and Llama 3.2 11B Instruct is made by Meta. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Beam 1.0 compare to Llama 3.2 11B Instruct in benchmarks?

Beam 1.0 scores AIME 2026: 97.7%, GPQA: 90.6%, LiveCodeBench: 88.3%, SWE-Bench Verified: 81.6%, MCP Atlas: 80.8%. Llama 3.2 11B Instruct scores AI2D: 91.1%, DocVQA: 88.4%, ChartQA: 83.4%, VQAv2 (test): 75.2%, MMLU: 73.0%.

Is Beam 1.0 cheaper than Llama 3.2 11B Instruct?

Llama 3.2 11B Instruct is 8.0x cheaper for input tokens. Beam 1.0 costs $0.40/M input and $1.20/M output via together. Llama 3.2 11B Instruct costs $0.05/M input and $0.05/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for Beam 1.0 and Llama 3.2 11B Instruct?

Beam 1.0 supports 1.0M tokens and Llama 3.2 11B Instruct supports 128K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Beam 1.0 and Llama 3.2 11B Instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (44.6 vs -1.8), context window (1.0M vs 128K), input pricing ($0.40 vs $0.05/M), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (Apache 2.0 vs Llama 3.2 Community License). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Beam 1.0 and Llama 3.2 11B Instruct?

Beam 1.0 is developed by Reflection AI and Llama 3.2 11B Instruct is developed by Meta.