Model comparison
GPT-5.2 Pro vs Llama 2-70B
GPT-5.2 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.2 to 24.1 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 2-70B in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.2 Pro leads 64.8 to 7.5.
- Llama 2-70B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GPT-5.2 Pro | Llama 2-70B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 52.2 | 24.1 |
| 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 | 35 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Llama 2-70B: 30.8 (#281)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | — | 1079 |
Reasoning GPT-5.2 Pro leads
GPT-5.2 Pro: 51.8 (#31), Llama 2-70B: 13.7 (#324)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.41 | 113.59 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 54.2% | — |
| SimpleBench | 57.4% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 79.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 90.5% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1073 |
| DTBench | — | 41.6% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 64.9% |
| CommonsenseQA 2.0 | — | 50% |
| ForecastBench | — | 51.4 |
| HellaSwag | — | 85.3% |
| LAMBADA | — | 78.9% |
| PIQA | — | 82.8% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.2% |
Math GPT-5.2 Pro leads
GPT-5.2 Pro: 64.8 (#23), Llama 2-70B: 7.5 (#320)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 74% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 46% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 0% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1091 |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 3.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 31.3% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 69.6% |
Knowledge Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Llama 2-70B: 7.4 (#305)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 26.3% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1039 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 78.3% |
| BoolQ | — | 88.6% |
| MMLU | — | 69.9% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 60.2% |
| TriviaQA | — | 87.6% |
Multilingual Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Llama 2-70B: 27.9 (#269)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1045 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 994 |
| LMArena French | — | 1089 |
| LMArena German | — | 1041 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 927 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 964 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1083 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1142 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Llama 2-70B: 55.1 (#273)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1071 |
Long Context Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Llama 2-70B: 32.2 (#265)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1062 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GPT-5.2 Pro: —, Llama 2-70B: 32.5 (#274)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 Pro | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1115 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1075 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1088 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.2 Pro better than Llama 2-70B?
GPT-5.2 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 52.2 to 24.1 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.2 Pro and Llama 2-70B share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. GPT-5.2 Pro has 8 scored results on Noometry and Llama 2-70B has 35.