Model comparison
Gemma 2B vs GPT-5.1-Codex
GPT-5.1-Codex is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.2 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- The widest gap is in coding, where GPT-5.1-Codex leads 41.7 to 28.9.
- Gemma 2B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemma 2B | GPT-5.1-Codex | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | |
| Noometry Index | 29.1 | 38.2 |
| Released | 2024-02-21 | 2025-11-12 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 400K |
| Max output | — | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $1.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $10 |
| Results tracked | 23 | 6 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.1-Codex leads
Gemma 2B: 28.9 (#300), GPT-5.1-Codex: 41.7 (#107)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 66% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1337 |
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,245 |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, GPT-5.1-Codex: 37.8 (#32)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 60.4% |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 70.8% |
Reasoning Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 17.9 (#275), GPT-5.1-Codex: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 93.57 | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |
Math GPT-5.1-Codex leads
Gemma 2B: 27.6 (#237), GPT-5.1-Codex: 29.3 (#218)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | — | 9% |
| LMArena Math | 1009 | — |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, GPT-5.1-Codex: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| MMLU | 42.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 23.1 (#289), GPT-5.1-Codex: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 48.8 (#297), GPT-5.1-Codex: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 971 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#286), GPT-5.1-Codex: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemma 2B: 24.1 (#303), GPT-5.1-Codex: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | GPT-5.1-Codex |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 986 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2B better than GPT-5.1-Codex?
GPT-5.1-Codex is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.2 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2B or GPT-5.1-Codex better for coding?
GPT-5.1-Codex scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.7 versus 28.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and GPT-5.1-Codex share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and GPT-5.1-Codex has 6.