Noometry

Model comparison

Grok 4.7 vs Llama 2-13B

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.7 xAI

53.1

Rank #37 Confirmed

Llama 2-13B Meta

29.6

Rank #309 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.7 scores higher in 8 categories and Llama 2-13B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Grok 4.7 leads 70.0 to 29.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 96% for Grok 4.7 and 42.2% for Llama 2-13B.
  • Llama 2-13B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.7Llama 2-13B
ProviderxAIMeta
Noometry Index53.129.6
Released2026-09-212023-07-18
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window500K—
Max output500K—
Input $ / M tokens$2—
Output $ / M tokens$6—
Results tracked3932

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

Category by category

Coding Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 58.0 (#18), Llama 2-13B: 30.9 (#291)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Llama 2-13B
LMArena Coding14271062
FrontierCode47.6%—
CursorBench46.3%—
LMArena WebDev1639—
FrontierSWE29.5%—
SciCode57.8%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 36.7 (#37), Llama 2-13B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Llama 2-13B
APEX-Agents54.6%—
GDP.pdf22.8%—
Vending-Bench 210,537—

Reasoning Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 49.1 (#40), Llama 2-13B: 12.8 (#337)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Llama 2-13B
Chess Puzzles38%0%
LMArena Hard Prompts14131051
DTBench96%42.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index153.53106.17
NYT Connections (extended)76.8%—
CritPt18%—
Mystery Game Puzzles29%—
LMCA49.4%—
BIG-Bench Hard—58.2%
HellaSwag—80.7%
LAMBADA—76.5%
PIQA—80.8%
WinoGrande—72.8%

Math Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 57.8 (#39), Llama 2-13B: 31.1 (#229)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Llama 2-13B
LMArena Math14071065
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)53%—
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202598.1%—
ProofBench34%—
GSM8K—36.9%

Knowledge Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 62.8 (#22), Llama 2-13B: 28.1 (#249)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Llama 2-13B
LMArena Expert14221030
GPQA Diamond92.7%—
SimpleQA Verified56%—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—60.3%
BoolQ—82.4%
MMLU—55.6%
OpenBookQA—57%
TriviaQA—79.6%

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.7: 35.5 (#87), Llama 2-13B: —

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Llama 2-13B
LMArena Vision1228—
Blueprint-Bench 232.5%—
Furniture Assembly20.8%—
ScienceQA—55.8%

Multilingual Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 50.8 (#116), Llama 2-13B: 26.5 (#279)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Llama 2-13B
LMArena Non-English13891024
LMArena Chinese14551001
LMArena French14551044
LMArena Russian13971055
LMArena Spanish14001087
LMArena German—1009
LMArena Japanese—894
LMArena Korean—953

Instruction Following Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 74.1 (#105), Llama 2-13B: 53.3 (#287)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Llama 2-13B
LMArena Instruction Following14041045

Long Context Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 43.1 (#104), Llama 2-13B: 32.3 (#269)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Llama 2-13B
LMArena Longer Query14131064

Writing & Preference Grok 4.7 leads

Grok 4.7: 70.0 (#24), Llama 2-13B: 29.8 (#289)

BenchmarkGrok 4.7Llama 2-13B
LMArena Text13991084
LMArena Creative Writing13911047
LMArena Multi-Turn13931050
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2007—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.7 better than Llama 2-13B?

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.1 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

Is Grok 4.7 or Llama 2-13B better for coding?

Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 58.0 versus 30.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.7 and Llama 2-13B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 39 scored results on Noometry and Llama 2-13B has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper