Model comparison
Llama 2-7B vs Llama 3.2 1B
Llama 2-7B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.1 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-7B scores higher in 4 categories and Llama 3.2 1B in 4 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Llama 2-7B leads 28.2 to 7.2.
Side by side
| Llama 2-7B | Llama 3.2 1B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 29.1 | 20.1 |
| Released | 2023-07-18 | 2024-09-24 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 60K |
| Max output | — | 54K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.027 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.20 |
| Results tracked | 29 | 22 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Llama 2-7B leads
Llama 2-7B: 29.2 (#307), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1002 | 1070 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 8.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 11.3% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Llama 2-7B: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 10.8% |
| BALROG | — | 6.6% |
Reasoning Too close to call
Llama 2-7B: 15.7 (#312), Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1009 | 1044 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 99.06 | 101.99 |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 39.2% | — |
| HellaSwag | 77.2% | — |
| LAMBADA | 73.3% | — |
| PIQA | 78.8% | — |
| WinoGrande | 69.2% | — |
Math Llama 2-7B leads
Llama 2-7B: 30.7 (#233), Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1042 | 1086 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 0.6% |
| GSM8K | 16.7% | — |
Knowledge Llama 2-7B leads
Llama 2-7B: 28.2 (#248), Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1036 | 1007 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 23.9% |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 45.9% | — |
| BoolQ | 77.9% | — |
| MMLU | 45.8% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 58.6% | — |
| TriviaQA | 73.7% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Llama 2-7B: —, Llama 3.2 1B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| ScienceQA | 43.1% | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
Llama 2-7B: 23.8 (#293), Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 973 | 973 |
| LMArena Chinese | 973 | 959 |
| LMArena German | 978 | 1014 |
| LMArena Russian | 995 | 941 |
| LMArena French | 970 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1007 | — |
Instruction Following Llama 3.2 1B leads
Llama 2-7B: 50.8 (#298), Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1006 | 1031 |
Long Context Llama 3.2 1B leads
Llama 2-7B: 30.4 (#287), Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 999 | 1050 |
Writing & Preference Llama 2-7B leads
Llama 2-7B: 28.0 (#298), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-7B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1053 | 1055 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1033 | 1033 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1029 | 1030 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 200 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 2-7B better than Llama 3.2 1B?
Llama 2-7B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.1 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Llama 2-7B or Llama 3.2 1B better for coding?
Llama 2-7B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 29.2 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Llama 2-7B and Llama 3.2 1B share?
15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-7B has 29 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 1B has 22.