Noometry

Model comparison

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Llama 3.1-70B

Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.1-70B costs 8.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 32 shared benchmarks.

Gemini 2.5 Pro Google

45.0

Rank #75 Confirmed

Llama 3.1-70B Meta

29.6

Rank #308 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 32 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher in 9 categories and Llama 3.1-70B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Gemini 2.5 Pro leads 56.0 to 24.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 84.7% for Gemini 2.5 Pro and 3.6% for Llama 3.1-70B.
  • Llama 3.1-70B is cheaper at $0.40 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $10 for Gemini 2.5 Pro.
  • Gemini 2.5 Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 128K.
  • Llama 3.1-70B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Gemini 2.5 ProLlama 3.1-70B
ProviderGoogleMeta
Noometry Index45.029.6
Released2025-03-252024-07-23
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M128K
Max output66K4K
Input $ / M tokens$1.25$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$10$0.40
Results tracked7835

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 42.4 (#101), Llama 3.1-70B: 30.3 (#296)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProLlama 3.1-70B
WeirdML54%9%
LMArena Coding14521260
SWE-bench Verified57.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)53.6%—
Aider Polyglot83.1%—
LMArena WebDev1227—
SciCode42.8%—
GSO3.9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—46.1%
LiveBench Coding85.9%—
BigCodeBench Complete—54.8%
CadEval64%—
ALE-Bench785.52—
AlgoTune1.51—

Agentic & Tool Use Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 29.2 (#88), Llama 3.1-70B: 25.1 (#112)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProLlama 3.1-70B
TheAgentCompany30.3%6.9%
BALROG43.3%27.9%
Terminal-Bench32.6%—
GDPval23.3%—
Remote Labor Index0.8%—
τ²-bench Banking13.7%—
DeepResearch Bench42.8%—
LMArena Search1142—
METR Time Horizons55.4%—
Vending-Bench 2573.64—

Reasoning Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 28.8 (#99), Llama 3.1-70B: 21.6 (#220)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProLlama 3.1-70B
LMArena Hard Prompts14551241
DTBench82.4%60%
LMCA34.8%14.8%
Epoch Capabilities Index145.32125.92
ARC-AGI-24.9%—
SimpleBench62.4%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark70.3%—
ARC-AGI-141%—
CritPt2%—
Chess Puzzles20%—
EnigmaEval5.6%—
LiveBench Reasoning89.8%—
LiveBench Data Analysis79.9%—
ForecastBench61.3—
LiveBench82.3%—

Math Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 32.5 (#213), Llama 3.1-70B: 13.5 (#304)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProLlama 3.1-70B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202584.7%3.6%
Omni-MATH41.6%21%
LMArena Math14501252
MATH Level 595.9%36.7%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)24.6%—
FrontierMath Tier 40%—
LiveBench Math90.2%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)14.1%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%—

Knowledge Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 56.0 (#46), Llama 3.1-70B: 24.2 (#269)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProLlama 3.1-70B
GPQA Diamond85.3%44.2%
MMLU-Pro86.3%65.3%
GPQA (HELM)74.9%42.6%
LMArena Expert14521209
Humanity's Last Exam21.6%—
Confabulations10.6%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate7%—
MMLU—80.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 45.2 (#18), Llama 3.1-70B: —

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProLlama 3.1-70B
LMArena Vision1263—
GeoBench86%—
VPCT48%—
LMArena Document1421—
SpatialViz-Bench44.7%—

Multilingual Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 55.3 (#31), Llama 3.1-70B: 38.8 (#225)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProLlama 3.1-70B
LMArena Non-English14511219
LMArena Chinese15071215
LMArena French14721261
LMArena German14871222
LMArena Japanese14611132
LMArena Korean14341140
LMArena Russian14611234
LMArena Spanish14731253

Instruction Following Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 75.0 (#75), Llama 3.1-70B: 65.3 (#223)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProLlama 3.1-70B
IFEval84%82.1%
LMArena Instruction Following14371231
LiveBench Instruction Following80.6%—

Long Context Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 59.8 (#5), Llama 3.1-70B: 37.6 (#214)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProLlama 3.1-70B
LMArena Longer Query14491241
Fiction.LiveBench91.7%—

Writing & Preference Gemini 2.5 Pro leads

Gemini 2.5 Pro: 63.7 (#62), Llama 3.1-70B: 35.4 (#267)

BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProLlama 3.1-70B
LMArena Text14581261
LMArena Creative Writing14541232
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1421784
WildBench85.7%75.8%
LMArena Multi-Turn14531256
Short-Story Creative Writing83.8%—
LiveBench Language67.8%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Gemini 2.5 Pro better than Llama 3.1-70B?

Gemini 2.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.0 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.1-70B costs 8.6× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Llama 3.1-70B?

Llama 3.1-70B is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Gemini 2.5 Pro lists at $1.25 and $10.

Is Gemini 2.5 Pro or Llama 3.1-70B better for coding?

Gemini 2.5 Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 30.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Pro and Llama 3.1-70B share?

32 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Pro has 78 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.1-70B has 35.

Related comparisons

Go deeper