# Llama 2-70B vs Llama 3.1-70B

> Llama 3.1-70B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.6 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/llama-2-70b-vs-llama-3-1-70b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 23

## Summary

- They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-70B scores higher in 1 category and Llama 3.1-70B in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Llama 3.1-70B leads 24.2 to 7.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is MATH Level 5: 3.3% for Llama 2-70B and 36.7% for Llama 3.1-70B.

## Snapshot

| | Llama 2-70B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 24.4 | 29.6 |
| Rank | 349 | 308 |
| Context | — | 128K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.40 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.40 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Llama 2-70B: 31.4 (#286)
- Llama 3.1-70B: 30.3 (#296)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1079 | 1260 |
| WeirdML | — | 9% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 46.1% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.8% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Llama 2-70B: —
- Llama 3.1-70B: 25.1 (#112)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | — | 6.9% |
| BALROG | — | 27.9% |

## Reasoning

- Llama 2-70B: 14.4 (#325)
- Llama 3.1-70B: 21.6 (#220)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1073 | 1241 |
| DTBench | 41.6% | 60% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 113.79 | 125.92 |
| LMCA | — | 14.8% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 64.9% | — |
| CommonsenseQA 2.0 | 50% | — |
| ForecastBench | 51.4 | — |
| HellaSwag | 85.3% | — |
| LAMBADA | 78.9% | — |
| PIQA | 82.8% | — |
| WinoGrande | 80.2% | — |

## Math

- Llama 2-70B: 8.1 (#326)
- Llama 3.1-70B: 13.5 (#304)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0% | 3.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1091 | 1252 |
| MATH Level 5 | 3.3% | 36.7% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 21% |
| GSM8K | 69.6% | — |

## Knowledge

- Llama 2-70B: 7.4 (#310)
- Llama 3.1-70B: 24.2 (#269)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 26.3% | 44.2% |
| LMArena Expert | 1039 | 1209 |
| MMLU | 69.9% | 80.1% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 65.3% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 42.6% |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 78.3% | — |
| BoolQ | 88.6% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 60.2% | — |
| TriviaQA | 87.6% | — |

## Multilingual

- Llama 2-70B: 27.7 (#274)
- Llama 3.1-70B: 38.8 (#225)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1045 | 1219 |
| LMArena Chinese | 995 | 1215 |
| LMArena French | 1090 | 1261 |
| LMArena German | 1041 | 1222 |
| LMArena Japanese | 927 | 1132 |
| LMArena Korean | 964 | 1140 |
| LMArena Russian | 1083 | 1234 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1143 | 1253 |

## Instruction Following

- Llama 2-70B: 54.9 (#278)
- Llama 3.1-70B: 65.3 (#223)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1071 | 1231 |
| IFEval | — | 82.1% |

## Long Context

- Llama 2-70B: 32.3 (#270)
- Llama 3.1-70B: 37.6 (#214)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1062 | 1241 |

## Writing & Preference

- Llama 2-70B: 32.3 (#279)
- Llama 3.1-70B: 35.4 (#267)

| Benchmark | Llama 2-70B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1115 | 1261 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1075 | 1232 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1088 | 1256 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 784 |
| WildBench | — | 75.8% |

## FAQ

### Is Llama 2-70B better than Llama 3.1-70B?

Llama 3.1-70B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.6 to 24.4 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Llama 2-70B or Llama 3.1-70B better for coding?

Llama 2-70B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 31.4 versus 30.3 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Llama 2-70B and Llama 3.1-70B share?

23 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-70B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.1-70B has 35.