Model comparison
Gemma 2B vs Llama 3.1-8B
Gemma 2B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.6 to 23.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
Google
MetaSummary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 3 categories and Llama 3.1-8B in 4 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Gemma 2B leads 30.0 to 10.2.
Side by side
| Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-8B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 23.0 |
| Released | 2024-02-21 | 2024-07-23 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 128K |
| Max output | — | 4K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.05 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.08 |
| Results tracked | 23 | 43 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemma 2B leads
Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305), Llama 3.1-8B: 20.2 (#340)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | 1195 |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | 62.8% |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | 55.6% |
| SciCode | — | 13.2% |
| WeirdML | — | 1.7% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 32.8% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 40.5% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Llama 3.1-8B: 22.5 (#131)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 25.8% |
| BALROG | — | 15.1% |
Reasoning Gemma 2B leads
Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275), Llama 3.1-8B: 14.9 (#321)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | 1175 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 94.2 | 116.57 |
| PIQA | 77.3% | 81.2% |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| DTBench | — | 50.9% |
| LMCA | — | 5.4% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |
Math Gemma 2B leads
Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239), Llama 3.1-8B: 10.2 (#317)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1009 | 1179 |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | 82.4% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 1.7% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 13.7% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 22.9% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Llama 3.1-8B: 8.0 (#307)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| BoolQ | 69.4% | 82.8% |
| MMLU | 42.3% | 56.1% |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 27% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 40.6% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 24.7% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1144 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |
Multilingual Llama 3.1-8B leads
Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294), Llama 3.1-8B: 34.0 (#249)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | 1148 |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | 1151 |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | 1158 |
| LMArena French | — | 1177 |
| LMArena German | — | 1144 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1061 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1053 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1169 |
Instruction Following Llama 3.1-8B leads
Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302), Llama 3.1-8B: 58.9 (#258)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 970 | 1159 |
| IFEval | — | 74.3% |
Long Context Llama 3.1-8B leads
Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291), Llama 3.1-8B: 35.8 (#238)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | 1182 |
Writing & Preference Llama 3.1-8B leads
Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308), Llama 3.1-8B: 29.7 (#290)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | 1187 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 987 | 1154 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | 1172 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 713 |
| WildBench | — | 68.7% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2B better than Llama 3.1-8B?
Gemma 2B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.6 to 23.0 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2B or Llama 3.1-8B better for coding?
Gemma 2B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 29.4 versus 20.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and Llama 3.1-8B share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.1-8B has 43.