Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Llama 3.2 1B
Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Google
MetaSummary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher in 6 categories and Llama 3.2 1B in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Gemini 2.0 Pro leads 52.7 to 21.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 65.7% for Gemini 2.0 Pro and 23.9% for Llama 3.2 1B.
- Llama 3.2 1B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 1B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | |
| Noometry Index | 39.1 | 20.1 |
| Released | 2025-02-05 | 2024-09-24 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 60K |
| Max output | — | 54K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.027 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.20 |
| Results tracked | 14 | 22 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.8 (#187), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 8.2% |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1070 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 11.3% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 10.8% |
| BALROG | — | 6.6% |
Reasoning Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 22.3 (#198), Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | 101.99 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1044 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | — |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | — |
Math Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 39.7 (#100), Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 0.6% |
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1086 |
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#167), Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | 23.9% |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1007 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 973 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 959 |
| LMArena German | — | 1014 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 941 |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.5 (#59), Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1031 |
Long Context Llama 3.2 1B leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.2 (#292), Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1050 |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#165), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1055 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1033 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 200 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1030 |
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than Llama 3.2 1B?
Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or Llama 3.2 1B better for coding?
Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.8 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and Llama 3.2 1B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 1B has 22.