Model comparison

GPT-5.2 vs Llama 3.1-8B

GPT-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.1 to 23.0 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.1-8B costs 84× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.2's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.

GPT-5.2 OpenAI

54.1

Rank #34 Confirmed

Llama 3.1-8B Meta

23.0

Rank #352 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.2 scores higher in 9 categories and Llama 3.1-8B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where GPT-5.2 leads 59.3 to 8.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 96.1% for GPT-5.2 and 1.7% for Llama 3.1-8B.
  • Llama 3.1-8B is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.08 per million input/output tokens, against $1.75 / $14 for GPT-5.2.
  • GPT-5.2 accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 128K.
  • Llama 3.1-8B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-5.2 and Llama 3.1-8B specifications
GPT-5.2Llama 3.1-8B
ProviderOpenAIMeta
Noometry Index54.123.0
Released2025-12-112024-07-23
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window400K128K
Max output128K4K
Input $ / M tokens$1.75$0.05
Output $ / M tokens$14$0.08
Results tracked6743

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding GPT-5.2 leads

GPT-5.2: 51.6 (#37), Llama 3.1-8B: 20.2 (#340)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.2Llama 3.1-8B
WeirdML72.2%1.7%
LMArena Coding14471195
SWE-bench Verified73.8%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)72.8%—
LMArena WebDev1416—
SWE-bench Multilingual66.7%—
SciCode—13.2%
GSO27.4%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—32.8%
BigCodeBench Complete—40.5%
ALE-Bench1,294—
AlgoTune2.05—
HumanEval+—62.8%
MBPP+—55.6%

Agentic & Tool Use GPT-5.2 leads

GPT-5.2: 40.2 (#24), Llama 3.1-8B: 22.5 (#131)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.2Llama 3.1-8B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard55.9%25.8%
Terminal-Bench64.9%—
GDPval49.7%—
Remote Labor Index2.5%—
τ²-bench Airline83%—
τ²-bench Banking32.2%—
τ²-bench Retail81.6%—
τ²-bench Telecom89.7%—
DeepResearch Bench41.1%—
BALROG—15.1%
LMArena Search1207—
METR Time Horizons75.3%—
Vending-Bench 23,591—

Reasoning GPT-5.2 leads

GPT-5.2: 50.2 (#35), Llama 3.1-8B: 14.9 (#321)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.2Llama 3.1-8B
Chess Puzzles49%0%
LMArena Hard Prompts14451175
DTBench90.9%50.9%
LMCA43.9%5.4%
Epoch Capabilities Index153.45116.57
ARC-AGI-252.9%—
SimpleBench45.8%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark73.3%—
NYT Connections (extended)83.6%—
ARC-AGI-186.2%—
CritPt—0%
EnigmaEval10.4%—
EBR-Bench23%—
Mystery Game Puzzles23%—
ForecastBench60.1—
PIQA—81.2%

Math GPT-5.2 leads

GPT-5.2: 60.0 (#38), Llama 3.1-8B: 10.2 (#317)

Knowledge GPT-5.2 leads

GPT-5.2: 59.3 (#32), Llama 3.1-8B: 8.0 (#307)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.2Llama 3.1-8B
GPQA Diamond91.4%27%
LMArena Expert14451144
Humanity's Last Exam27.8%—
SimpleQA Verified37.1%—
MMLU-Pro—40.6%
Vectara Hallucination Rate8.4%—
GPQA (HELM)—24.7%
BoolQ—82.8%
MMLU—56.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

GPT-5.2: 51.3 (#7), Llama 3.1-8B: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.2Llama 3.1-8B
LMArena Vision1268—
VPCT84%—
Furniture Assembly38.3%—
LMArena Document1405—

Multilingual GPT-5.2 leads

GPT-5.2: 53.4 (#67), Llama 3.1-8B: 34.0 (#249)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.2Llama 3.1-8B
LMArena Non-English14251148
LMArena Chinese14601151
LMArena French14551177
LMArena German14481144
LMArena Japanese14201061
LMArena Korean13921053
LMArena Russian14401158
LMArena Spanish14331169

Instruction Following GPT-5.2 leads

GPT-5.2: 74.7 (#89), Llama 3.1-8B: 58.9 (#258)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.2Llama 3.1-8B
LMArena Instruction Following14171159
IFEval—74.3%

Long Context GPT-5.2 leads

GPT-5.2: 44.0 (#78), Llama 3.1-8B: 35.8 (#238)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.2Llama 3.1-8B
LMArena Longer Query14281182
CL-bench18.2%—

Writing & Preference GPT-5.2 leads

GPT-5.2: 66.8 (#32), Llama 3.1-8B: 29.7 (#290)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGPT-5.2Llama 3.1-8B
LMArena Text14391187
LMArena Creative Writing14011154
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1703713
LMArena Multi-Turn14581172
WildBench—68.7%

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-5.2 better than Llama 3.1-8B?

GPT-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.1 to 23.0 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.1-8B costs 84× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.2's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.2 or Llama 3.1-8B?

Llama 3.1-8B is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.08 per million output tokens; GPT-5.2 lists at $1.75 and $14.

Is GPT-5.2 or Llama 3.1-8B better for coding?

GPT-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 51.6 versus 20.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-5.2 does, with 400K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do GPT-5.2 and Llama 3.1-8B share?

26 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.2 has 67 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.1-8B has 43.

Related comparisons

Go deeper