Model comparison
Gemini 1.0 Pro vs Llama 3.2 3B
Llama 3.2 3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 28.4 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Google
MetaSummary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 1.0 Pro scores higher in 5 categories and Llama 3.2 3B in 3 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Llama 3.2 3B leads 29.9 to 8.7.
- Llama 3.2 3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 1.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | |
| Noometry Index | 27.1 | 28.4 |
| Released | 2023-12-13 | 2024-09-24 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 118K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.05 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.33 |
| Results tracked | 24 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemini 1.0 Pro leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 31.6 (#270), Llama 3.2 3B: 27.1 (#314)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1108 | 1098 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 23.4% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 28.3% |
| HumanEval+ | 55.5% | — |
| MBPP+ | 61.4% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 1.0 Pro: —, Llama 3.2 3B: 19.9 (#135)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 21.9% |
| BALROG | — | 10.1% |
Reasoning Llama 3.2 3B leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 16.4 (#292), Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#225)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1109 | 1095 |
| DTBench | 45.9% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 116.97 | — |
Math Llama 3.2 3B leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 8.7 (#315), Llama 3.2 3B: 29.9 (#213)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1132 | 1126 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.1% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 11.2% | — |
Knowledge Llama 3.2 3B leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 15.5 (#286), Llama 3.2 3B: 29.1 (#232)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1059 | 1090 |
| GPQA Diamond | 34% | — |
| MMLU | 70% | — |
Multilingual Gemini 1.0 Pro leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 33.5 (#247), Llama 3.2 3B: 26.4 (#276)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1138 | 1019 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1124 | 1017 |
| LMArena German | 1125 | 1056 |
| LMArena Russian | 1186 | 949 |
| LMArena French | 1144 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1023 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1118 | — |
Instruction Following Gemini 1.0 Pro leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 57.9 (#262), Llama 3.2 3B: 56.3 (#270)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1114 | 1089 |
Long Context Too close to call
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 34.3 (#244), Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#256)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1132 | 1101 |
Writing & Preference Gemini 1.0 Pro leads
Gemini 1.0 Pro: 36.2 (#259), Llama 3.2 3B: 24.9 (#302)
| Benchmark | Gemini 1.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1149 | 1110 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1130 | 1094 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1139 | 1105 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 595 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 1.0 Pro better than Llama 3.2 3B?
Llama 3.2 3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 28.4 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 1.0 Pro or Llama 3.2 3B better for coding?
Gemini 1.0 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 31.6 versus 27.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 1.0 Pro and Llama 3.2 3B share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 1.0 Pro has 24 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 3B has 18.