Model comparison
GPT-5 vs Llama 2-70B
GPT-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.9 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 23 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-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 knowledge, where GPT-5 leads 56.6 to 7.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is MATH Level 5: 98.1% for GPT-5 and 3.3% for Llama 2-70B.
- Llama 2-70B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GPT-5 | Llama 2-70B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 50.9 | 24.4 |
| Released | 2025-08-07 | 2023-07-18 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 400K | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | — |
| Results tracked | 69 | 35 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5 leads
GPT-5: 50.3 (#47), Llama 2-70B: 31.4 (#286)
| Benchmark | GPT-5 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1436 | 1079 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 65% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 88% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1418 | — |
| SciCode | 42.9% | — |
| GSO | 6.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 60.7% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,162 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.67 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-5: 33.1 (#56), Llama 2-70B: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 49.6% | — |
| GDPval | 34.8% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 1.7% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 49.6% | — |
| BALROG | 32.8% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1133 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 69.6% | — |
Reasoning GPT-5 leads
GPT-5: 38.3 (#64), Llama 2-70B: 14.4 (#325)
| Benchmark | GPT-5 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1416 | 1073 |
| DTBench | 90.7% | 41.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 150 | 113.79 |
| ForecastBench | 61.4 | 51.4 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 9.9% | — |
| SimpleBench | 56.7% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 72.7% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 65.7% | — |
| CritPt | 12.6% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 37% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 10.5% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 12.7% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 23% | — |
| LMCA | 40% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 64.9% |
| CommonsenseQA 2.0 | — | 50% |
| HellaSwag | — | 85.3% |
| LAMBADA | — | 78.9% |
| PIQA | — | 82.8% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.2% |
Math GPT-5 leads
GPT-5: 55.0 (#44), Llama 2-70B: 8.1 (#326)
| Benchmark | GPT-5 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 91.4% | 0% |
| LMArena Math | 1407 | 1091 |
| MATH Level 5 | 98.1% | 3.3% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 55.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 22% | — |
| ProofBench | 18% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 64.7% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 32.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 69.6% |
Knowledge GPT-5 leads
GPT-5: 56.6 (#43), Llama 2-70B: 7.4 (#310)
| Benchmark | GPT-5 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 86.2% | 26.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1419 | 1039 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 25.3% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 50.1% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 86.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 10.3% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 14.7% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 79.2% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 78.3% |
| BoolQ | — | 88.6% |
| MMLU | — | 69.9% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 60.2% |
| TriviaQA | — | 87.6% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-5: 46.8 (#13), Llama 2-70B: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1232 | — |
| GeoBench | 81% | — |
| VPCT | 66% | — |
Multilingual GPT-5 leads
GPT-5: 51.4 (#110), Llama 2-70B: 27.7 (#274)
| Benchmark | GPT-5 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1397 | 1045 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1422 | 995 |
| LMArena French | 1410 | 1090 |
| LMArena German | 1416 | 1041 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1409 | 927 |
| LMArena Korean | 1360 | 964 |
| LMArena Russian | 1406 | 1083 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1399 | 1143 |
Instruction Following GPT-5 leads
GPT-5: 73.8 (#113), Llama 2-70B: 54.9 (#278)
| Benchmark | GPT-5 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1388 | 1071 |
| IFEval | 87.5% | — |
Long Context GPT-5 leads
GPT-5: 69.5 (#2), Llama 2-70B: 32.3 (#270)
| Benchmark | GPT-5 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1399 | 1062 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 97.2% | — |
Writing & Preference GPT-5 leads
GPT-5: 63.4 (#65), Llama 2-70B: 32.3 (#279)
| Benchmark | GPT-5 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1406 | 1115 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1365 | 1075 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1426 | 1088 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 86% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1627 | — |
| WildBench | 85.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5 better than Llama 2-70B?
GPT-5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.9 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is GPT-5 or Llama 2-70B better for coding?
GPT-5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.3 versus 31.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5 and Llama 2-70B share?
23 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5 has 69 scored results on Noometry and Llama 2-70B has 35.