GPT-4o vs Llama 3.2 Instruct 11B (Vision)
Wins 5 of 6 areas
Coding · Facts · Images and charts · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 0 of 6 areas
—
GPT-4o is the stronger all-rounder.Llama 3.2 Instruct 11B (Vision) is cheaper.
Scores updated · 21 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the six areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- CodingWriting and fixing software20GPT-4o2 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20GPT-4o2 of 2 tests
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video10GPT-4o1 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10GPT-4o1 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10GPT-4o1 of 1 test
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking11Even1 each · 1 tie
Images and charts, long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
Llama 3.2 Instruct 11B (Vision) costs 97% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where GPT-4o pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+44points ahead
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+43.3points ahead
- Graduate-level biology, physics and chemistry questionsGPQA Diamond+30.5points ahead
Where Llama 3.2 Instruct 11B (Vision) pulls ahead
- Very hard expert questions across many subjectsHumanity's Last Exam+3.7points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 21 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingGPT-4o
- SciCodeGPT-4o by 22.133.311.2+22.1
- Terminal-Bench HardGPT-4o by 7.58.30.8+7.5
ReasoningEven
- GPQA DiamondGPT-4o by 30.552.622.1+30.5
- Humanity's Last ExamLlama 3.2 Instruct 11B (Vision) by 3.71.85.5+3.7
- CritPttie00tie
FactsGPT-4o
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationGPT-4o by 4462.118.1+44
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyGPT-4o by 13.123.710.6+13.1
Other results11 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- AA-OmniscienceGPT-4o by 52.1-10.5-62.6+52.1
- naturalquestions_closedbookGPT-4o by 26.249.623.4+26.2
- OpenBookQAGPT-4o by 24.496.872.4+24.4
- MMLUGPT-4o by 22.773.851.1+22.7
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexGPT-4o by 2024.24.2+20
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)GPT-4o by 14.328.914.6+14.3
- MATHGPT-4o by 11.485.373.9+11.4
- GSM8KGPT-4o by 8.690.982.3+8.6
- NarrativeQAGPT-4o by 3.979.575.6+3.9
- AA Agentic IndexGPT-4o by 3.58.44.9+3.5
- AA IntelligenceGPT-4o by 1.97.35.4+1.9
Questions people ask
Which is better, GPT-4o or Llama 3.2 Instruct 11B (Vision)?
GPT-4o wins five of the six areas where both have results: coding, facts, images and charts, long documents and following instructions. Llama 3.2 Instruct 11B (Vision) wins none, but costs 97% less. They are level on reasoning.
Which is better for coding?
GPT-4o. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; Llama 3.2 Instruct 11B (Vision) wins none.
Which is cheaper?
GPT-4o costs $5.00 per million input tokens and $15.00 per million output tokens; Llama 3.2 Instruct 11B (Vision) costs $0.34 and $0.34. That makes Llama 3.2 Instruct 11B (Vision) about 97% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 21 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 10 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 11 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.