# Gemma 2B vs Llama 3.2 1B

> Gemma 2B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.6 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2b-vs-llama-3-2-1b
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 12

## Summary

- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 4 categories and Llama 3.2 1B in 3 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Gemma 2B leads 30.0 to 10.4.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 20.1 |
| Rank | 307 | 354 |
| Context | — | 60K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.027 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.20 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | 1070 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 8.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 11.3% |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

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

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

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | 1044 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 94.2 | 101.99 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |

## Math

- Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1009 | 1086 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 0.6% |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 2B: —
- Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 23.9% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1007 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| MMLU | 42.3% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | 973 |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | 959 |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | 941 |
| LMArena German | — | 1014 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 970 | 1031 |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | 1050 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | 1055 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 987 | 1033 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | 1030 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 200 |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 2B better than Llama 3.2 1B?

Gemma 2B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.6 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.

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

Gemma 2B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 29.4 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.

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

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 1B has 22.