Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Llama 3.2 90B
Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 27.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.
Google
MetaSummary
- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher in 3 categories and Llama 3.2 90B in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Gemini 2.0 Pro leads 39.7 to 11.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is MATH Level 5: 83.5% for Gemini 2.0 Pro and 39.4% for Llama 3.2 90B.
- Llama 3.2 90B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 90B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | |
| Noometry Index | 39.1 | 27.5 |
| Released | 2025-02-05 | 2024-09-24 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 14 | 9 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.8 (#187), Llama 3.2 90B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, Llama 3.2 90B: 30.0 (#80)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| BALROG | — | 27.3% |
Reasoning Too close to call
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 22.3 (#198), Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#217)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | 0.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | 125.5 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | — |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | — |
Math Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 39.7 (#100), Llama 3.2 90B: 11.1 (#308)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | 39.4% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 2.6% |
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
Knowledge Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#167), Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#274)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | 41% |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
| MMLU | — | 80.3% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, Llama 3.2 90B: 25.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1000 |
| GeoBench | — | 52% |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.5 (#59), Llama 3.2 90B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.2 (#292), Llama 3.2 90B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#165), Llama 3.2 90B: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 90B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than Llama 3.2 90B?
Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 27.5 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and Llama 3.2 90B share?
4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 90B has 9.