Model comparison
Gemma 2 2b IT vs Llama 3.1-405B
Gemma 2 2b IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.1 to 30.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
Google
MetaSummary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 2b IT scores higher in 2 categories and Llama 3.1-405B in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Gemma 2 2b IT leads 32.6 to 18.4.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 2b IT | Llama 3.1-405B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | |
| Noometry Index | 33.1 | 30.7 |
| Released | — | 2024-07-23 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 17 | 42 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Gemma 2 2b IT: 32.3 (#273), Llama 3.1-405B: 33.1 (#262)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Llama 3.1-405B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1112 | 1291 |
| WeirdML | — | 21.4% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 2 2b IT: —, Llama 3.1-405B: 21.0 (#140)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Llama 3.1-405B |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | — | 7.4% |
| Cybench | — | 7.5% |
Reasoning Gemma 2 2b IT leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 21.4 (#224), Llama 3.1-405B: 16.8 (#300)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Llama 3.1-405B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1113 | 1269 |
| SimpleBench | — | 23% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 45% |
| DTBench | — | 61.4% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 82.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 128.75 |
| ForecastBench | — | 59.9 |
| HellaSwag | — | 89.2% |
| PIQA | — | 85.9% |
| WinoGrande | — | 89.2% |
Math Gemma 2 2b IT leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 32.6 (#212), Llama 3.1-405B: 18.4 (#290)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Llama 3.1-405B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1135 | 1281 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 9.7% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 24.9% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 49.8% |
Knowledge Too close to call
Gemma 2 2b IT: 29.9 (#231), Llama 3.1-405B: 30.4 (#227)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Llama 3.1-405B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1096 | 1243 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 50.9% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 72.3% |
| Confabulations | — | 17.6% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 52.2% |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 95.3% |
| MMLU | — | 84.5% |
| TriviaQA | — | 82.7% |
Multilingual Llama 3.1-405B leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 32.3 (#257), Llama 3.1-405B: 40.7 (#214)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Llama 3.1-405B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1121 | 1248 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1132 | 1242 |
| LMArena French | 1157 | 1279 |
| LMArena German | 1114 | 1252 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1083 | 1208 |
| LMArena Korean | 1055 | 1184 |
| LMArena Russian | 1118 | 1265 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1140 | 1260 |
Instruction Following Llama 3.1-405B leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 57.8 (#263), Llama 3.1-405B: 65.9 (#214)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Llama 3.1-405B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1118 | 1259 |
| IFEval | — | 81.1% |
Long Context Llama 3.1-405B leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 34.3 (#250), Llama 3.1-405B: 38.4 (#197)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Llama 3.1-405B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1130 | 1266 |
Writing & Preference Llama 3.1-405B leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 36.5 (#263), Llama 3.1-405B: 38.9 (#251)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Llama 3.1-405B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1156 | 1284 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1147 | 1262 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1118 | 1297 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 870 |
| WildBench | — | 78.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 2b IT better than Llama 3.1-405B?
Gemma 2 2b IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.1 to 30.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2 2b IT or Llama 3.1-405B better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (32.3 vs 33.1); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 2b IT and Llama 3.1-405B share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 2b IT has 17 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.1-405B has 42.