Model comparison
Claude 2.1 vs Llama 3.1-8B
Claude 2.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 25.2 to 23.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 6 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 4 categories and Llama 3.1-8B in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Claude 2.1 leads 15.4 to 8.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 33% for Claude 2.1 and 27% for Llama 3.1-8B.
- Llama 3.1-8B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.1-8B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 25.2 | 23.0 |
| Released | 2023-11-21 | 2024-07-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 128K |
| Max output | — | 4K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.05 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.08 |
| Results tracked | 7 | 43 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude 2.1 leads
Claude 2.1: 26.2 (#327), Llama 3.1-8B: 20.2 (#340)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 7.1% | 1.7% |
| SciCode | — | 13.2% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 32.8% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1195 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 40.5% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 62.8% |
| MBPP+ | — | 55.6% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Llama 3.1-8B: 22.5 (#131)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 25.8% |
| BALROG | — | 15.1% |
Reasoning Claude 2.1 leads
Claude 2.1: 21.4 (#221), Llama 3.1-8B: 14.9 (#321)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 51% | 50.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.27 | 116.57 |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1175 |
| LMCA | — | 5.4% |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |
| PIQA | — | 81.2% |
Math Too close to call
Claude 2.1: 10.2 (#315), Llama 3.1-8B: 10.2 (#317)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | 1.7% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 13.7% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1179 |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 22.9% |
| GSM8K | — | 82.4% |
Knowledge Claude 2.1 leads
Claude 2.1: 15.4 (#292), Llama 3.1-8B: 8.0 (#307)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | 27% |
| MMLU | 73.5% | 56.1% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 40.6% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 24.7% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1144 |
| BoolQ | — | 82.8% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Llama 3.1-8B: 34.0 (#249)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1148 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1151 |
| LMArena French | — | 1177 |
| LMArena German | — | 1144 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1061 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1053 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1158 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1169 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Llama 3.1-8B: 58.9 (#258)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | — | 74.3% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1159 |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Llama 3.1-8B: 35.8 (#238)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1182 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Llama 3.1-8B: 29.7 (#290)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Llama 3.1-8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1187 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1154 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 713 |
| WildBench | — | 68.7% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1172 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 2.1 better than Llama 3.1-8B?
Claude 2.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 25.2 to 23.0 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 2.1 or Llama 3.1-8B better for coding?
Claude 2.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 26.2 versus 20.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Llama 3.1-8B share?
6 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.1-8B has 43.