Model comparison
Gemma 2B vs Llama 3.1-405B
Llama 3.1-405B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.7 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
Google
MetaSummary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 2 categories and Llama 3.1-405B in 5 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in multilingual, where Llama 3.1-405B leads 40.7 to 23.0.
Side by side
| Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-405B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 30.7 |
| Released | 2024-02-21 | 2024-07-23 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 23 | 42 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Llama 3.1-405B leads
Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305), Llama 3.1-405B: 33.1 (#262)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-405B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | 1291 |
| WeirdML | — | 21.4% |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Llama 3.1-405B: 21.0 (#140)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-405B |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | — | 7.4% |
| Cybench | — | 7.5% |
Reasoning Gemma 2B leads
Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275), Llama 3.1-405B: 16.8 (#300)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-405B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | 1269 |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | 82.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 94.2 | 128.75 |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | 89.2% |
| PIQA | 77.3% | 85.9% |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | 89.2% |
| SimpleBench | — | 23% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 45% |
| DTBench | — | 61.4% |
| ForecastBench | — | 59.9 |
Math Gemma 2B leads
Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239), Llama 3.1-405B: 18.4 (#290)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-405B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1009 | 1281 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 9.7% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 24.9% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 49.8% |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Llama 3.1-405B: 30.4 (#227)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-405B |
|---|---|---|
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | 95.3% |
| MMLU | 42.3% | 84.5% |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | 82.7% |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 50.9% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 72.3% |
| Confabulations | — | 17.6% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 52.2% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1243 |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
Multilingual Llama 3.1-405B leads
Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294), Llama 3.1-405B: 40.7 (#214)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-405B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | 1248 |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | 1242 |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | 1265 |
| LMArena French | — | 1279 |
| LMArena German | — | 1252 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1208 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1184 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1260 |
Instruction Following Llama 3.1-405B leads
Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302), Llama 3.1-405B: 65.9 (#214)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-405B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 970 | 1259 |
| IFEval | — | 81.1% |
Long Context Llama 3.1-405B leads
Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291), Llama 3.1-405B: 38.4 (#197)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-405B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | 1266 |
Writing & Preference Llama 3.1-405B leads
Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308), Llama 3.1-405B: 38.9 (#251)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-405B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | 1284 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 987 | 1262 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | 1297 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 870 |
| WildBench | — | 78.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2B better than Llama 3.1-405B?
Llama 3.1-405B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.7 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2B or Llama 3.1-405B better for coding?
Llama 3.1-405B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.1 versus 29.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and Llama 3.1-405B share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.1-405B has 42.