Model comparison
GPT-5.2 Pro vs Llama 2-13B
GPT-5.2 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.3 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. GPT-5.2 Pro scores higher in 2 categories and Llama 2-13B in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GPT-5.2 Pro leads 51.5 to 12.8.
- Llama 2-13B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GPT-5.2 Pro | Llama 2-13B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 52.3 | 29.6 |
| Released | 2025-12-11 | 2023-07-18 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 400K | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $21 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $168 | — |
| Results tracked | 8 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Llama 2-13B: 30.9 (#291)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | — | 1062 |
Reasoning GPT-5.2 Pro leads
GPT-5.2 Pro: 51.5 (#33), Llama 2-13B: 12.8 (#337)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.4 | 106.17 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 54.2% | — |
| SimpleBench | 57.4% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 79.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 90.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1051 |
| DTBench | — | 42.2% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 58.2% |
| HellaSwag | — | 80.7% |
| LAMBADA | — | 76.5% |
| PIQA | — | 80.8% |
| WinoGrande | — | 72.8% |
Math GPT-5.2 Pro leads
GPT-5.2 Pro: 65.3 (#29), Llama 2-13B: 31.1 (#229)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 74% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 46% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1065 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 31.3% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 36.9% |
Knowledge Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Llama 2-13B: 28.1 (#249)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1030 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 60.3% |
| BoolQ | — | 82.4% |
| MMLU | — | 55.6% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 57% |
| TriviaQA | — | 79.6% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Llama 2-13B: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| ScienceQA | — | 55.8% |
Multilingual Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Llama 2-13B: 26.5 (#279)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1024 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1001 |
| LMArena French | — | 1044 |
| LMArena German | — | 1009 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 894 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 953 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1055 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1087 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Llama 2-13B: 53.3 (#287)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1045 |
Long Context Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Llama 2-13B: 32.3 (#269)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1064 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Llama 2-13B: 29.8 (#289)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Llama 2-13B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1084 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1047 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1050 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.2 Pro better than Llama 2-13B?
GPT-5.2 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.3 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.2 Pro and Llama 2-13B share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. GPT-5.2 Pro has 8 scored results on Noometry and Llama 2-13B has 32.