Model comparison
Gemma 2 2b IT vs Llama 3.2 3B
Gemma 2 2b IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.1 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Google
MetaSummary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 2b IT scores higher in 8 categories and Llama 3.2 3B in 0 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Gemma 2 2b IT leads 36.5 to 24.7.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 2b IT | Llama 3.2 3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | |
| Noometry Index | 33.1 | 28.9 |
| Released | — | 2024-09-24 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 118K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.05 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.33 |
| Results tracked | 17 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemma 2 2b IT leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 32.3 (#273), Llama 3.2 3B: 27.6 (#319)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1112 | 1098 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 23.4% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 28.3% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 2 2b IT: —, Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#143)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 21.9% |
| BALROG | — | 10.1% |
Reasoning Too close to call
Gemma 2 2b IT: 21.4 (#224), Llama 3.2 3B: 21.0 (#228)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1113 | 1095 |
Math Too close to call
Gemma 2 2b IT: 32.6 (#212), Llama 3.2 3B: 32.4 (#214)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1135 | 1126 |
Knowledge Too close to call
Gemma 2 2b IT: 29.9 (#231), Llama 3.2 3B: 29.7 (#235)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1096 | 1090 |
Multilingual Gemma 2 2b IT leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 32.3 (#257), Llama 3.2 3B: 26.2 (#281)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1121 | 1019 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1132 | 1017 |
| LMArena German | 1114 | 1056 |
| LMArena Russian | 1118 | 949 |
| LMArena French | 1157 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1083 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1055 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1140 | — |
Instruction Following Gemma 2 2b IT leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 57.8 (#263), Llama 3.2 3B: 56.0 (#275)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1118 | 1089 |
Long Context Too close to call
Gemma 2 2b IT: 34.3 (#250), Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#261)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1130 | 1100 |
Writing & Preference Gemma 2 2b IT leads
Gemma 2 2b IT: 36.5 (#263), Llama 3.2 3B: 24.7 (#307)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 2b IT | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1156 | 1110 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1147 | 1094 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1118 | 1105 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 595 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 2b IT better than Llama 3.2 3B?
Gemma 2 2b IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.1 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2 2b IT or Llama 3.2 3B better for coding?
Gemma 2 2b IT scores higher on coding benchmarks: 32.3 versus 27.6 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 2b IT and Llama 3.2 3B share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 2b IT has 17 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 3B has 18.