Model comparison
Gemma 1.1 2b IT vs Llama 3.1-8B
Gemma 1.1 2b IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 28.8 to 22.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
Google
MetaSummary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 1.1 2b IT scores higher in 4 categories and Llama 3.1-8B in 4 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Gemma 1.1 2b IT leads 28.3 to 9.5.
Side by side
| Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Llama 3.1-8B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | |
| Noometry Index | 28.8 | 22.8 |
| Released | — | 2024-07-23 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 128K |
| Max output | — | 4K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.05 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.08 |
| Results tracked | 16 | 43 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemma 1.1 2b IT leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 29.6 (#294), Llama 3.1-8B: 19.9 (#335)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1034 | 1195 |
| HumanEval+ | 17.7% | 62.8% |
| MBPP+ | 23.3% | 55.6% |
| SciCode | — | 13.2% |
| WeirdML | — | 1.7% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 32.8% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 40.5% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: —, Llama 3.1-8B: 22.3 (#123)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 25.8% |
| BALROG | — | 15.1% |
Reasoning Gemma 1.1 2b IT leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 18.2 (#268), Llama 3.1-8B: 14.5 (#316)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1005 | 1175 |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| DTBench | — | 50.9% |
| LMCA | — | 5.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 116.48 |
| PIQA | — | 81.2% |
Math Gemma 1.1 2b IT leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 28.3 (#230), Llama 3.1-8B: 9.5 (#311)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1047 | 1179 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 1.7% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 13.7% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 22.9% |
| GSM8K | — | 82.4% |
Knowledge Gemma 1.1 2b IT leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 26.0 (#255), Llama 3.1-8B: 8.0 (#302)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 970 | 1144 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 27% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 40.6% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 24.7% |
| BoolQ | — | 82.8% |
| MMLU | — | 56.1% |
Multilingual Llama 3.1-8B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 24.7 (#284), Llama 3.1-8B: 34.2 (#244)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 988 | 1148 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1011 | 1151 |
| LMArena German | 944 | 1144 |
| LMArena Korean | 899 | 1053 |
| LMArena Russian | 990 | 1158 |
| LMArena French | — | 1176 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1061 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1169 |
Instruction Following Llama 3.1-8B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 50.1 (#294), Llama 3.1-8B: 59.1 (#253)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 992 | 1159 |
| IFEval | — | 74.3% |
Long Context Llama 3.1-8B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.5 (#281), Llama 3.1-8B: 35.8 (#233)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1003 | 1182 |
Writing & Preference Llama 3.1-8B leads
Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 25.3 (#301), Llama 3.1-8B: 29.9 (#285)
| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1022 | 1187 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 998 | 1154 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 958 | 1172 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 713 |
| WildBench | — | 68.7% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT better than Llama 3.1-8B?
Gemma 1.1 2b IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 28.8 to 22.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT or Llama 3.1-8B better for coding?
Gemma 1.1 2b IT scores higher on coding benchmarks: 29.6 versus 19.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 1.1 2b IT and Llama 3.1-8B share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 1.1 2b IT has 16 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.1-8B has 43.