Model comparison
GPT-5.1 vs Llama 2-7B
GPT-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.0 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Llama 2-7B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GPT-5.1 leads 64.5 to 28.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 32% for GPT-5.1 and 0% for Llama 2-7B.
- Llama 2-7B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GPT-5.1 | Llama 2-7B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 49.0 | 29.1 |
| Released | 2025-11-13 | 2023-07-18 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 400K | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | — |
| Results tracked | 63 | 29 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 46.4 (#66), Llama 2-7B: 29.2 (#307)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | 1002 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 68% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 66% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1395 | — |
| SciCode | 43.3% | — |
| GSO | 13.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 60.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 72.5% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,192 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-5.1: 32.7 (#60), Llama 2-7B: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 47.6% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 42.8% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1199 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 1,473 | — |
Reasoning GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 39.8 (#58), Llama 2-7B: 15.7 (#312)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 32% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1457 | 1009 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.64 | 99.06 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 17.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 53.2% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 72.8% | — |
| CritPt | 4.9% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 11.2% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 95.8% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 19% | — |
| DTBench | 90.1% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 72.1% | — |
| LMCA | 43.9% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 39.2% |
| ForecastBench | 58.1 | — |
| HellaSwag | — | 77.2% |
| LAMBADA | — | 73.3% |
| LiveBench | 78.8% | — |
| PIQA | — | 78.8% |
| WinoGrande | — | 69.2% |
Math GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 52.2 (#51), Llama 2-7B: 30.7 (#233)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1447 | 1042 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 88.6% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 46.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 94.5% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 31% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 16.7% |
Knowledge GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 50.6 (#71), Llama 2-7B: 28.2 (#248)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1470 | 1036 |
| GPQA Diamond | 87.6% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 23.7% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 48% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 57.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.9% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 44.2% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 45.9% |
| BoolQ | — | 77.9% |
| MMLU | — | 45.8% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 58.6% |
| TriviaQA | — | 73.7% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-5.1: 44.8 (#19), Llama 2-7B: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1250 | — |
| VPCT | 58.7% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1403 | — |
| ScienceQA | — | 43.1% |
Multilingual GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 53.8 (#56), Llama 2-7B: 23.8 (#293)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1431 | 973 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1495 | 973 |
| LMArena French | 1450 | 970 |
| LMArena German | 1438 | 978 |
| LMArena Russian | 1435 | 995 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1433 | 1007 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1453 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1401 | — |
Instruction Following GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 83.9 (#1), Llama 2-7B: 50.8 (#298)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1443 | 1006 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 93.3% | — |
| IFEval | 93.5% | — |
Long Context GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 47.6 (#14), Llama 2-7B: 30.4 (#287)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1447 | 999 |
| CL-bench | 23.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 17.3% | — |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 64.5 (#55), Llama 2-7B: 28.0 (#298)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1443 | 1053 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1427 | 1033 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1450 | 1029 |
| WildBench | 86.3% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 80.2% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.1 better than Llama 2-7B?
GPT-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.0 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is GPT-5.1 or Llama 2-7B better for coding?
GPT-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.4 versus 29.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.1 and Llama 2-7B share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.1 has 63 scored results on Noometry and Llama 2-7B has 29.