Model comparison
Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Llama 4 Scout
Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 27.4 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 7 categories and Llama 4 Scout in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Gemini 2.0 Pro leads 37.1 to 18.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is MATH Level 5: 83.5% for Gemini 2.0 Pro and 62.3% for Llama 4 Scout.
- Llama 4 Scout has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 4 Scout | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | |
| Noometry Index | 38.6 | 27.4 |
| Released | 2025-02-05 | 2025-04-05 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 128K |
| Max output | — | 4K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.30 |
| Results tracked | 14 | 43 |
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: 37.4 (#182), Llama 4 Scout: 19.9 (#334)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9.1% |
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| SciCode | — | 17% |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1286 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 43.1% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, Llama 4 Scout: 24.4 (#109)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 28.1% |
Reasoning Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 21.6 (#194), Llama 4 Scout: 9.2 (#339)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | 129.64 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 0% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 36.9% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 0.5% |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1266 |
| DTBench | — | 57.9% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | — |
| LMCA | — | 12% |
| ForecastBench | — | 57.5 |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | — |
Math Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.1 (#101), Llama 4 Scout: 18.4 (#280)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | 62.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 7.8% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 37.3% |
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1286 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#156), Llama 4 Scout: 31.8 (#208)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | 51.8% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 74.2% |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 7.7% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 50.7% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1236 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, Llama 4 Scout: 31.6 (#98)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1118 |
| SpatialViz-Bench | — | 34.2% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 2.0 Pro: —, Llama 4 Scout: 41.3 (#207)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1253 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1256 |
| LMArena French | — | 1283 |
| LMArena German | — | 1274 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1209 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1207 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1263 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1277 |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.6 (#57), Llama 4 Scout: 66.0 (#212)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |
| IFEval | — | 81.8% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1248 |
Long Context Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.1 (#287), Llama 4 Scout: 27.5 (#289)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | 36% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1265 |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.0 Pro leads
Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#164), Llama 4 Scout: 37.1 (#256)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1279 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1249 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 783 |
| WildBench | — | 78% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1281 |
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than Llama 4 Scout?
Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 27.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or Llama 4 Scout better for coding?
Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.4 versus 19.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and Llama 4 Scout share?
4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Llama 4 Scout has 43.