# Grok Build 0.1 vs Llama 2-70B

> Grok Build 0.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 36.4 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/grok-build-0-1-vs-llama-2-70b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok Build 0.1 leads 32.2 to 14.4.
- Llama 2-70B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Grok Build 0.1 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 36.4 | 24.4 |
| Rank | 216 | 349 |
| Context | 256K | — |
| Input $/M | $1 | — |
| Output $/M | $2 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Grok Build 0.1: 43.1 (#91)
- Llama 2-70B: 31.4 (#286)

| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 50.2% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1079 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Grok Build 0.1: 22.7 (#129)
- Llama 2-70B: —

| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| GBAEval | 2.4% | — |

## Reasoning

- Grok Build 0.1: 32.2 (#77)
- Llama 2-70B: 14.4 (#325)

| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 9.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1073 |
| DTBench | — | 41.6% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 64.9% |
| CommonsenseQA 2.0 | — | 50% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 113.79 |
| ForecastBench | — | 51.4 |
| HellaSwag | — | 85.3% |
| LAMBADA | — | 78.9% |
| PIQA | — | 82.8% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.2% |

## Math

- Grok Build 0.1: —
- Llama 2-70B: 8.1 (#326)

| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 0% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1091 |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 3.3% |
| GSM8K | — | 69.6% |

## Knowledge

- Grok Build 0.1: —
- Llama 2-70B: 7.4 (#310)

| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 26.3% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1039 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 78.3% |
| BoolQ | — | 88.6% |
| MMLU | — | 69.9% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 60.2% |
| TriviaQA | — | 87.6% |

## Multilingual

- Grok Build 0.1: —
- Llama 2-70B: 27.7 (#274)

| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1045 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 995 |
| LMArena French | — | 1090 |
| LMArena German | — | 1041 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 927 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 964 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1083 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1143 |

## Instruction Following

- Grok Build 0.1: —
- Llama 2-70B: 54.9 (#278)

| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1071 |

## Long Context

- Grok Build 0.1: —
- Llama 2-70B: 32.3 (#270)

| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1062 |

## Writing & Preference

- Grok Build 0.1: —
- Llama 2-70B: 32.3 (#279)

| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1115 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1075 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1088 |

## FAQ

### Is Grok Build 0.1 better than Llama 2-70B?

Grok Build 0.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 36.4 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Grok Build 0.1 or Llama 2-70B better for coding?

Grok Build 0.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.1 versus 31.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Grok Build 0.1 and Llama 2-70B share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok Build 0.1 has 3 scored results on Noometry and Llama 2-70B has 35.