Model comparison
Grok-3 mini vs Llama 2-7B
Grok-3 mini is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.2 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok-3 mini scores higher in 7 categories and Llama 2-7B in 1 category; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in instruction following, where Grok-3 mini leads 78.5 to 50.8.
- Llama 2-7B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok-3 mini | Llama 2-7B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 41.2 | 29.1 |
| Released | 2025-04-09 | 2023-07-18 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 35 | 29 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok-3 mini leads
Grok-3 mini: 40.8 (#131), Llama 2-7B: 29.2 (#307)
| Benchmark | Grok-3 mini | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1379 | 1002 |
| Aider Polyglot | 49.3% | — |
| WeirdML | 42.6% | — |
Reasoning Llama 2-7B leads
Grok-3 mini: 13.6 (#334), Llama 2-7B: 15.7 (#312)
| Benchmark | Grok-3 mini | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1375 | 1009 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 140.35 | 99.06 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 0.4% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 61.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 16.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 39.2% |
| HellaSwag | — | 77.2% |
| LAMBADA | — | 73.3% |
| PIQA | — | 78.8% |
| WinoGrande | — | 69.2% |
Math Grok-3 mini leads
Grok-3 mini: 42.1 (#85), Llama 2-7B: 30.7 (#233)
| Benchmark | Grok-3 mini | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1386 | 1042 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 77.8% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 31.8% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 90.9% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 5.9% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 16.7% |
Knowledge Grok-3 mini leads
Grok-3 mini: 46.4 (#81), Llama 2-7B: 28.2 (#248)
| Benchmark | Grok-3 mini | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1395 | 1036 |
| GPQA Diamond | 76.3% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 79.9% | — |
| Confabulations | 10.8% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 67.5% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 45.9% |
| BoolQ | — | 77.9% |
| MMLU | — | 45.8% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 58.6% |
| TriviaQA | — | 73.7% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok-3 mini: —, Llama 2-7B: —
| Benchmark | Grok-3 mini | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| ScienceQA | — | 43.1% |
Multilingual Grok-3 mini leads
Grok-3 mini: 48.1 (#145), Llama 2-7B: 23.8 (#293)
| Benchmark | Grok-3 mini | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1352 | 973 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1387 | 973 |
| LMArena French | 1357 | 970 |
| LMArena German | 1349 | 978 |
| LMArena Russian | 1353 | 995 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1381 | 1007 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1342 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1335 | — |
Instruction Following Grok-3 mini leads
Grok-3 mini: 78.5 (#9), Llama 2-7B: 50.8 (#298)
| Benchmark | Grok-3 mini | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1357 | 1006 |
| IFEval | 95.1% | — |
Long Context Grok-3 mini leads
Grok-3 mini: 41.0 (#147), Llama 2-7B: 30.4 (#287)
| Benchmark | Grok-3 mini | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1372 | 999 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 66.7% | — |
Writing & Preference Grok-3 mini leads
Grok-3 mini: 52.5 (#169), Llama 2-7B: 28.0 (#298)
| Benchmark | Grok-3 mini | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1370 | 1053 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1342 | 1033 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1355 | 1029 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 73.5% | — |
| WildBench | 65.1% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok-3 mini better than Llama 2-7B?
Grok-3 mini is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.2 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Grok-3 mini or Llama 2-7B better for coding?
Grok-3 mini scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.8 versus 29.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Grok-3 mini and Llama 2-7B share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok-3 mini has 35 scored results on Noometry and Llama 2-7B has 29.