+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct vs o1
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
o1 leads with 16.6% higher average benchmark score. o1 offers 44.0K more tokens in context window than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is $74.25 cheaper per million tokens. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct supports multimodal inputs. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is available on 5 providers. Overall, o1 is the stronger choice for coding tasks.
+
+
+
+
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B was developed as a flagship-tier open-source model, designed to provide advanced capabilities with 90 billion parameters. Built to serve applications requiring high-quality reasoning and generation, it represents a powerful option within the Llama 3.2 series for demanding tasks.
+
+
+
+
OpenAI
o1 was developed as part of OpenAI's reasoning-focused model series, designed to spend more time thinking before responding. Built to excel at complex reasoning tasks in science, coding, and mathematics, it employs extended internal reasoning processes to solve harder problems than traditional language models through careful step-by-step analysis.
2 months newer
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Meta
2024-09-25
o1
OpenAI
2024-12-17
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Pricing Comparison
Cost per million tokens (USD)
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Input:$0.35
Output:$0.40($74.25 cheaper)
+
+
+
+
o1
Input:$15.00
Output:$60.00
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 6 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Average Score:67.5%
+
+
+
+
o1
Average Score:84.1%(+16.6%)
Provider Availability & Performance
Available providers and their performance metrics
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
5 providers
Bedrock
Throughput: 100 tok/s
Latency: 0.5ms
DeepInfra
Throughput: 24 tok/s
Latency: 0.5ms
Fireworks
Throughput: 50 tok/s
Latency: 0.5ms
Hyperbolic
Throughput: 42 tok/s
Latency: 0.5ms
Together
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Avg Score:67.5%
Providers:5
+
+
+
+
o1
Avg Score:84.1%(+16.6%)
Providers:2