Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.1 Fast vs Llama 2-7B

Grok 4.1 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.1 Fast xAI

41.4

Rank #136 Confirmed

Llama 2-7B Meta

29.1

Rank #317 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.1 Fast scores higher in 8 categories and Llama 2-7B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Grok 4.1 Fast leads 57.2 to 28.0.
  • Llama 2-7B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.1 FastLlama 2-7B
ProviderxAIMeta
Noometry Index41.429.1
Released2025-06-272023-07-18
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window128K—
Max output30K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.20—
Output $ / M tokens$0.50—
Results tracked3229

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

Category by category

Coding Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 34.1 (#245), Llama 2-7B: 29.2 (#307)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastLlama 2-7B
LMArena Coding14111002
LMArena WebDev1242—
ALE-Bench394.93—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.1 Fast: 36.3 (#39), Llama 2-7B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastLlama 2-7B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard69.6%—
τ²-bench Banking13.1%—
LMArena Search1171—
Vending-Bench 21,107—

Reasoning Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 43.4 (#49), Llama 2-7B: 15.7 (#312)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastLlama 2-7B
LMArena Hard Prompts14071009
SimpleBench56%—
NYT Connections (extended)87.4%—
Chess Puzzles—0%
DTBench87.7%—
BIG-Bench Hard—39.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index—99.06
ForecastBench61—
HellaSwag—77.2%
LAMBADA—73.3%
PIQA—78.8%
WinoGrande—69.2%

Math Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 31.9 (#221), Llama 2-7B: 30.7 (#233)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastLlama 2-7B
LMArena Math14081042
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions60.9%—
ProofBench4%—
GSM8K—16.7%

Knowledge Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 33.1 (#207), Llama 2-7B: 28.2 (#248)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastLlama 2-7B
LMArena Expert13991036
Vectara Hallucination Rate17.8%—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—45.9%
BoolQ—77.9%
MMLU—45.8%
OpenBookQA—58.6%
TriviaQA—73.7%

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.1 Fast: 37.0 (#76), Llama 2-7B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastLlama 2-7B
LMArena Vision1201—
ScienceQA—43.1%

Multilingual Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 51.0 (#114), Llama 2-7B: 23.8 (#293)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastLlama 2-7B
LMArena Non-English1391973
LMArena Chinese1441973
LMArena French1415970
LMArena German1404978
LMArena Russian1387995
LMArena Spanish14131007
LMArena Japanese1349—
LMArena Korean1361—

Instruction Following Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 72.7 (#133), Llama 2-7B: 50.8 (#298)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastLlama 2-7B
LMArena Instruction Following13761006

Long Context Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 42.4 (#126), Llama 2-7B: 30.4 (#287)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastLlama 2-7B
LMArena Longer Query1390999

Writing & Preference Grok 4.1 Fast leads

Grok 4.1 Fast: 57.2 (#131), Llama 2-7B: 28.0 (#298)

BenchmarkGrok 4.1 FastLlama 2-7B
LMArena Text14081053
LMArena Creative Writing13941033
LMArena Multi-Turn13891029
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1327—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.1 Fast better than Llama 2-7B?

Grok 4.1 Fast is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4.1 Fast or Llama 2-7B better for coding?

Grok 4.1 Fast scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.1 versus 29.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 Fast and Llama 2-7B share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 Fast has 32 scored results on Noometry and Llama 2-7B has 29.

Related comparisons

Go deeper