Model comparison
Gemma 2 9B vs Llama 3.2 1B
Gemma 2 9B is the stronger model overall, scoring 25.9 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
Google
MetaSummary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 9B scores higher in 6 categories and Llama 3.2 1B in 2 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in multilingual, where Gemma 2 9B leads 36.6 to 23.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Complete: 40.6% for Gemma 2 9B and 11.3% for Llama 3.2 1B.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 9B | Llama 3.2 1B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | |
| Noometry Index | 25.9 | 20.1 |
| Released | 2024-06-24 | 2024-09-24 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 60K |
| Max output | — | 54K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.027 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.20 |
| Results tracked | 35 | 22 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemma 2 9B leads
Gemma 2 9B: 29.4 (#304), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 34.7% | 8.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1173 | 1070 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 40.6% | 11.3% |
| LiveBench Coding | 22.5% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 2 9B: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 10.8% |
| BALROG | — | 6.6% |
Reasoning Too close to call
Gemma 2 9B: 15.9 (#309), Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1171 | 1044 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.83 | 101.99 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 15.2% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 36.4% | — |
| LiveBench | 28.7% | — |
| PIQA | 83.7% | — |
Math Too close to call
Gemma 2 9B: 9.9 (#318), Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | 0.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1183 | 1086 |
| LiveBench Math | 19.8% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 21% | — |
| GSM8K | 84.9% | — |
Knowledge Gemma 2 9B leads
Gemma 2 9B: 9.7 (#305), Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 27.5% | 23.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1147 | 1007 |
| BoolQ | 85.7% | — |
| MMLU | 72.1% | — |
Multilingual Gemma 2 9B leads
Gemma 2 9B: 36.6 (#238), Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1188 | 973 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1185 | 959 |
| LMArena German | 1186 | 1014 |
| LMArena Russian | 1200 | 941 |
| LMArena French | 1190 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1144 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1137 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1200 | — |
Instruction Following Gemma 2 9B leads
Gemma 2 9B: 57.6 (#269), Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1178 | 1031 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 52.6% | — |
Long Context Gemma 2 9B leads
Gemma 2 9B: 36.3 (#233), Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1197 | 1050 |
Writing & Preference Gemma 2 9B leads
Gemma 2 9B: 32.1 (#281), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1207 | 1055 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1206 | 1033 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 841 | 200 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1193 | 1030 |
| LiveBench Language | 25.5% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 9B better than Llama 3.2 1B?
Gemma 2 9B is the stronger model overall, scoring 25.9 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2 9B or Llama 3.2 1B better for coding?
Gemma 2 9B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 29.4 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 9B and Llama 3.2 1B share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 9B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 1B has 22.