Model comparison
GPT-5.5 vs Llama 2-70B
GPT-5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 63.4 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.5 scores higher in 8 categories and Llama 2-70B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.5 leads 81.7 to 8.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 100% for GPT-5.5 and 0% for Llama 2-70B.
- Llama 2-70B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GPT-5.5 | Llama 2-70B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 63.4 | 24.4 |
| Released | 2026-04-23 | 2023-07-18 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $30 | — |
| Results tracked | 71 | 35 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.5 leads
GPT-5.5: 58.2 (#17), Llama 2-70B: 31.4 (#286)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1494 | 1079 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 80.6% | — |
| DeepSWE | 67% | — |
| FrontierCode | 43% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1513 | — |
| SciCode | 56.1% | — |
| GSO | 40.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 84.9% | — |
| MirrorCode | 10% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,943 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-5.5: 50.7 (#6), Llama 2-70B: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 84.7% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 55.1% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 13% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 6.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 44.6% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 54% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 27.2% | — |
| ExploitBench | 47.4% | — |
| GBAEval | 53.2% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 26% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1242 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 7,524 | — |
Reasoning GPT-5.5 leads
GPT-5.5: 72.8 (#11), Llama 2-70B: 14.4 (#325)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1489 | 1073 |
| DTBench | 96% | 41.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 159.1 | 113.79 |
| ForecastBench | 60.6 | 51.4 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 85% | — |
| SimpleBench | 69% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 88.8% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 96.2% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 95% | — |
| CritPt | 27.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 54% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 34.3% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 56% | — |
| LMCA | 54.3% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 88.1% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.14 | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 64.9% |
| CommonsenseQA 2.0 | — | 50% |
| HellaSwag | — | 85.3% |
| LAMBADA | — | 78.9% |
| PIQA | — | 82.8% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.2% |
Math GPT-5.5 leads
GPT-5.5: 81.7 (#11), Llama 2-70B: 8.1 (#326)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 0% |
| LMArena Math | 1486 | 1091 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 85.3% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 72.5% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 94.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 50% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 3.3% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 51.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Erdős | 0% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 35.4% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 69.6% |
Knowledge GPT-5.5 leads
GPT-5.5: 64.4 (#17), Llama 2-70B: 7.4 (#310)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 94% | 26.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1508 | 1039 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 63% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 78.3% |
| BoolQ | — | 88.6% |
| MMLU | — | 69.9% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 60.2% |
| TriviaQA | — | 87.6% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-5.5: 46.9 (#12), Llama 2-70B: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1297 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 36.2% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 44.2% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1486 | — |
Multilingual GPT-5.5 leads
GPT-5.5: 56.4 (#20), Llama 2-70B: 27.7 (#274)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1467 | 1045 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1533 | 995 |
| LMArena French | 1486 | 1090 |
| LMArena German | 1480 | 1041 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1498 | 927 |
| LMArena Korean | 1460 | 964 |
| LMArena Russian | 1473 | 1083 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1468 | 1143 |
Instruction Following GPT-5.5 leads
GPT-5.5: 77.5 (#18), Llama 2-70B: 54.9 (#278)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1479 | 1071 |
Long Context GPT-5.5 leads
GPT-5.5: 48.3 (#12), Llama 2-70B: 32.3 (#270)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1484 | 1062 |
| CL-bench Life | 22.2% | — |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.5 leads
GPT-5.5: 72.7 (#13), Llama 2-70B: 32.3 (#279)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1472 | 1115 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1455 | 1075 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1476 | 1088 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1844 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1315 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.5 better than Llama 2-70B?
GPT-5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 63.4 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is GPT-5.5 or Llama 2-70B better for coding?
GPT-5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.2 versus 31.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.5 and Llama 2-70B share?
22 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.5 has 71 scored results on Noometry and Llama 2-70B has 35.