# Gemini 2.0 Pro vs Llama 3.2 1B

> Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 19.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemini-2-0-pro-vs-llama-3-2-1b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 2

## Summary

- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher in 6 categories and Llama 3.2 1B in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Gemini 2.0 Pro leads 52.7 to 21.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 65.7% for Gemini 2.0 Pro and 23.9% for Llama 3.2 1B.
- Llama 3.2 1B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 38.6 | 19.9 |
| Rank | 171 | 349 |
| Context | — | 60K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.027 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.20 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.4 (#182)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 20.6 (#333)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 35.6% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 8.2% |
| LiveBench Coding | 63.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1071 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 11.3% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: —
- Llama 3.2 1B: 14.5 (#142)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 10.8% |
| BALROG | — | 6.6% |

## Reasoning

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 21.6 (#194)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 15.6 (#304)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.06 | 101.95 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 60.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1044 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 68% | — |
| LiveBench | 65.1% | — |

## Math

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 37.1 (#101)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 9.7 (#308)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 0.6% |
| LiveBench Math | 71% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1086 |
| MATH Level 5 | 83.5% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 36.5 (#156)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#307)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | 23.9% |
| Confabulations | 18.4% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1007 |

## Multilingual

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: —
- Llama 3.2 1B: 23.9 (#287)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 973 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 958 |
| LMArena German | — | 1014 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 941 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 75.6 (#57)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 52.6 (#285)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 83.4% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1031 |

## Long Context

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 29.1 (#287)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#269)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 41.7% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1050 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemini 2.0 Pro: 52.7 (#164)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 21.4 (#305)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.0 Pro | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1055 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1033 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 200 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1030 |
| LiveBench Language | 44.9% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemini 2.0 Pro better than Llama 3.2 1B?

Gemini 2.0 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.6 to 19.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemini 2.0 Pro or Llama 3.2 1B better for coding?

Gemini 2.0 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.4 versus 20.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.0 Pro and Llama 3.2 1B share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.0 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 1B has 22.