# Gemma 1.1 2b IT vs Llama 3.2 1B

> Gemma 1.1 2b IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.3 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-1-1-2b-it-vs-llama-3-2-1b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 13

## Summary

- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 1.1 2b IT scores higher in 6 categories and Llama 3.2 1B in 2 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Gemma 1.1 2b IT leads 30.8 to 10.4.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 29.3 | 20.1 |
| Rank | 313 | 354 |
| Context | — | 60K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.027 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.20 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.1 (#299)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338)

| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1034 | 1070 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 8.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 11.3% |
| HumanEval+ | 17.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 23.3% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemma 1.1 2b IT: —
- Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150)

| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 10.8% |
| BALROG | — | 6.6% |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 19.1 (#270)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308)

| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1005 | 1044 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 101.99 |

## Math

- Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.8 (#232)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313)

| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1047 | 1086 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 0.6% |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 26.5 (#258)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312)

| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 970 | 1007 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 23.9% |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 24.6 (#289)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292)

| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 988 | 973 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1012 | 959 |
| LMArena German | 944 | 1014 |
| LMArena Russian | 990 | 941 |
| LMArena Korean | 899 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 49.9 (#299)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290)

| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 992 | 1031 |

## Long Context

- Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 30.6 (#286)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274)

| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1003 | 1050 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 1.1 2b IT: 25.1 (#306)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310)

| Benchmark | Gemma 1.1 2b IT | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1022 | 1055 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 998 | 1033 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 959 | 1030 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 200 |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT better than Llama 3.2 1B?

Gemma 1.1 2b IT is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.3 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Gemma 1.1 2b IT or Llama 3.2 1B better for coding?

Gemma 1.1 2b IT scores higher on coding benchmarks: 30.1 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Gemma 1.1 2b IT and Llama 3.2 1B share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 1.1 2b IT has 16 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 1B has 22.