# Claude 2.1 vs Llama 2-7B

> Llama 2-7B is the stronger model overall, scoring 28.6 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-2-1-vs-llama-2-7b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 2

## Summary

- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 1 category and Llama 2-7B in 3 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Llama 2-7B leads 28.2 to 9.6.
- Llama 2-7B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude 2.1 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 24.9 | 28.6 |
| Rank | 340 | 315 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude 2.1: 25.8 (#322)
- Llama 2-7B: 28.7 (#302)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 7.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1002 |

## Reasoning

- Claude 2.1: 20.6 (#216)
- Llama 2-7B: 15.1 (#309)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.22 | 98.54 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1009 |
| DTBench | 51% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 39.2% |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |
| HellaSwag | — | 77.2% |
| LAMBADA | — | 73.3% |
| PIQA | — | 78.8% |
| WinoGrande | — | 69.2% |

## Math

- Claude 2.1: 9.6 (#309)
- Llama 2-7B: 28.2 (#231)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1042 |
| GSM8K | — | 16.7% |

## Knowledge

- Claude 2.1: 15.5 (#287)
- Llama 2-7B: 27.7 (#243)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 73.5% | 45.8% |
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1036 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 45.9% |
| BoolQ | — | 77.9% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 58.6% |
| TriviaQA | — | 73.7% |

## Multimodal

- Claude 2.1: —
- Llama 2-7B: —

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| ScienceQA | — | 43.1% |

## Multilingual

- Claude 2.1: —
- Llama 2-7B: 23.9 (#288)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 973 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 973 |
| LMArena French | — | 969 |
| LMArena German | — | 978 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 995 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1007 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude 2.1: —
- Llama 2-7B: 51.0 (#293)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1006 |

## Long Context

- Claude 2.1: —
- Llama 2-7B: 30.4 (#282)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 999 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude 2.1: —
- Llama 2-7B: 28.1 (#293)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1053 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1033 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1029 |

## FAQ

### Is Claude 2.1 better than Llama 2-7B?

Llama 2-7B is the stronger model overall, scoring 28.6 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Claude 2.1 or Llama 2-7B better for coding?

Llama 2-7B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 28.7 versus 25.8 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Llama 2-7B share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Llama 2-7B has 29.