Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) vs Llama 3.2 1B
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.1 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
Google
MetaSummary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) scores higher in 8 categories and Llama 3.2 1B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) leads 49.5 to 21.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 57.8% for Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) and 0.6% for Llama 3.2 1B.
- Llama 3.2 1B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Llama 3.2 1B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | |
| Noometry Index | 35.1 | 20.1 |
| Released | 2024-12-06 | 2024-09-24 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 60K |
| Max output | — | 54K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.027 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.20 |
| Results tracked | 54 | 22 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 28.4 (#315), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 45.9% | 8.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1350 | 1070 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 59.9% | 11.3% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 13.5% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 38.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 25.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.4% | — |
| CadEval | 30% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 28.1 (#92), Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 10.8% |
| TheAgentCompany | 11.4% | — |
| BALROG | — | 6.6% |
Reasoning Too close to call
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 15.2 (#318), Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1346 | 1044 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.36 | 101.99 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 1.3% | — |
| SimpleBench | 31.1% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 37.8% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| EnigmaEval | 1.1% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 78.2% | — |
| DTBench | 63.2% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 69.4% | — |
| LiveBench | 66.9% | — |
Math Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 37.9 (#146), Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 57.8% | 0.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1352 | 1086 |
| Omni-MATH | 45.9% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 75.8% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 82.2% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 1.7% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 32.0 (#213), Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 64.1% | 23.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1339 | 1007 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 6.6% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 73.7% | — |
| Confabulations | 12.4% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 55.6% | — |
| MMLU | 79.7% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 36.5 (#79), Llama 3.2 1B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1158 | — |
| GeoBench | 77% | — |
Multilingual Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 47.4 (#149), Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1342 | 973 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1373 | 959 |
| LMArena German | 1353 | 1014 |
| LMArena Russian | 1351 | 941 |
| LMArena French | 1391 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1294 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1313 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1363 | — |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 74.4 (#97), Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1336 | 1031 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 85.8% | — |
| IFEval | 84.1% | — |
Long Context Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 38.1 (#203), Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1344 | 1050 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | — |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) leads
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025): 49.5 (#190), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1354 | 1055 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1340 | 1033 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1128 | 200 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1350 | 1030 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 73.8% | — |
| WildBench | 80% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 51.3% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) better than Llama 3.2 1B?
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.1 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) or Llama 3.2 1B better for coding?
Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) scores higher on coding benchmarks: 28.4 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) and Llama 3.2 1B share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Flash (Feb 2025) has 54 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 1B has 22.