Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Llama 13b
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 9 shared benchmarks.
Google
MetaSummary
- They share 9 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 6 categories and Llama 13b in 0 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 63.7 to 13.8.
- Llama 13b has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | Llama 13b | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | |
| Noometry Index | 45.0 | 24.4 |
| Released | 2025-03-25 | 2023-02-24 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | — |
| Max output | 66K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | — |
| Results tracked | 78 | 21 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 42.4 (#101), Llama 13b: 21.4 (#337)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1452 | 683 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 57.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 53.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 83.1% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1227 | — |
| SciCode | 42.8% | — |
| GSO | 3.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 54% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 85.9% | — |
| CadEval | 64% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 785.52 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.51 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 29.2 (#88), Llama 13b: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 32.6% | — |
| GDPval | 23.3% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 0.8% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 30.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 13.7% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 42.8% | — |
| BALROG | 43.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1142 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 55.4% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 573.64 | — |
Reasoning Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 28.8 (#99), Llama 13b: 14.0 (#329)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1455 | 728 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.32 | 100.58 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 4.9% | — |
| SimpleBench | 62.4% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 70.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 41% | — |
| CritPt | 2% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 20% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 89.8% | — |
| DTBench | 82.4% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 79.9% | — |
| LMCA | 34.8% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 37.9% |
| ForecastBench | 61.3 | — |
| HellaSwag | — | 79.2% |
| LAMBADA | — | 75.2% |
| LiveBench | 82.3% | — |
| PIQA | — | 80.1% |
| WinoGrande | — | 73% |
Math Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 32.5 (#213), Llama 13b: 26.7 (#256)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1450 | 838 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 24.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 0% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 84.7% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 41.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 90.2% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 95.9% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 14.1% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 20.6% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 56.0 (#46), Llama 13b: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 85.3% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 21.6% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 86.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 10.6% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 74.9% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1452 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 52.7% |
| BoolQ | — | 78.7% |
| MMLU | — | 47.7% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 56.4% |
| TriviaQA | — | 77.9% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 45.2 (#18), Llama 13b: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
| GeoBench | 86% | — |
| VPCT | 48% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1421 | — |
| ScienceQA | — | 43.3% |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 44.7% | — |
Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.3 (#31), Llama 13b: 16.6 (#297)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1451 | 819 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | — |
| LMArena French | 1472 | — |
| LMArena German | 1487 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1461 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1434 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1461 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1473 | — |
Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.0 (#75), Llama 13b: 36.7 (#305)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1437 | 781 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 80.6% | — |
| IFEval | 84% | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.8 (#5), Llama 13b: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 91.7% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1449 | — |
Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.7 (#62), Llama 13b: 13.8 (#312)
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1458 | 834 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 794 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1453 | 753 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.8% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1421 | — |
| WildBench | 85.7% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 67.8% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 2.5 Pro better than Llama 13b?
Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or Llama 13b better for coding?
Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 21.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Pro and Llama 13b share?
9 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Llama 13b has 21.