Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Llama 3-8B
Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 25.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher in 6 categories and Llama 3-8B in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Gemini 2.0 Pro leads 39.7 to 8.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is MATH Level 5: 83.5% for Gemini 2.0 Pro and 6.1% for Llama 3-8B.
- Llama 3-8B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3-8B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | |
| Noometry Index | 39.1 | 25.5 |
| Released | 2025-02-05 | 2024-04-18 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 14 | 34 |
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 3-8B: 31.0 (#289)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3-8B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 31.9% |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1152 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 36.9% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 56.7% |
| MBPP+ | — | 54.8% |
Reasoning Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 22.3 (#198), Llama 3-8B: 14.3 (#326)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3-8B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | 116.45 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1133 |
| DTBench | — | 43.9% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | — |
| Adversarial NLI | — | 57.3% |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.6 |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | — |
| WinoGrande | — | 75.7% |
Math Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 39.7 (#100), Llama 3-8B: 8.8 (#323)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3-8B |
|---|---|---|
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | 6.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 1.9% |
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1151 |
Knowledge Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#167), Llama 3-8B: 7.8 (#308)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3-8B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | 26.1% |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1113 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 82.8% |
| MMLU | — | 68.8% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 82.6% |
| TriviaQA | — | 67.7% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, Llama 3-8B: 30.8 (#261)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1098 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1076 |
| LMArena French | — | 1159 |
| LMArena German | — | 1104 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 967 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1004 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1109 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1173 |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.5 (#59), Llama 3-8B: 58.4 (#260)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1127 |
Long Context Llama 3-8B leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.2 (#292), Llama 3-8B: 34.2 (#251)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3-8B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1128 |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#165), Llama 3-8B: 37.5 (#256)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1166 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1150 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1152 |
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than Llama 3-8B?
Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.1 to 25.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or Llama 3-8B better for coding?
Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.8 versus 31.0 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and Llama 3-8B share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3-8B has 34.