Model comparison
Gemma 2B vs Llama 3.1-70B
Gemma 2B and Llama 3.1-70B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (29.6 vs 29.6), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.
Google
MetaSummary
- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2B scores higher in 1 category and Llama 3.1-70B in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in instruction following, where Llama 3.1-70B leads 65.3 to 48.5.
Side by side
| Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-70B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 29.6 |
| Released | 2024-02-21 | 2024-07-23 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 128K |
| Max output | — | 4K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 23 | 35 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Gemma 2B: 29.4 (#305), Llama 3.1-70B: 30.3 (#296)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1010 | 1260 |
| WeirdML | — | 9% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 46.1% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.8% |
| HumanEval+ | 20.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 34.1% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Llama 3.1-70B: 25.1 (#112)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | — | 6.9% |
| BALROG | — | 27.9% |
Reasoning Llama 3.1-70B leads
Gemma 2B: 18.8 (#275), Llama 3.1-70B: 21.6 (#220)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 989 | 1241 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 94.2 | 125.92 |
| DTBench | — | 60% |
| LMCA | — | 14.8% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 35.2% | — |
| HellaSwag | 71.4% | — |
| PIQA | 77.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 65.4% | — |
Math Gemma 2B leads
Gemma 2B: 30.0 (#239), Llama 3.1-70B: 13.5 (#304)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1009 | 1252 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 3.6% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 21% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 36.7% |
| GSM8K | 17.7% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2B: —, Llama 3.1-70B: 24.2 (#269)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 42.3% | 80.1% |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 44.2% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 65.3% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 42.6% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1209 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 42.1% | — |
| BoolQ | 69.4% | — |
| TriviaQA | 53.2% | — |
Multilingual Llama 3.1-70B leads
Gemma 2B: 23.0 (#294), Llama 3.1-70B: 38.8 (#225)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 958 | 1219 |
| LMArena Chinese | 986 | 1215 |
| LMArena Russian | 937 | 1234 |
| LMArena French | — | 1261 |
| LMArena German | — | 1222 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1132 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1140 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1253 |
Instruction Following Llama 3.1-70B leads
Gemma 2B: 48.5 (#302), Llama 3.1-70B: 65.3 (#223)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 970 | 1231 |
| IFEval | — | 82.1% |
Long Context Llama 3.1-70B leads
Gemma 2B: 29.9 (#291), Llama 3.1-70B: 37.6 (#214)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 981 | 1241 |
Writing & Preference Llama 3.1-70B leads
Gemma 2B: 24.0 (#308), Llama 3.1-70B: 35.4 (#267)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1002 | 1261 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 987 | 1232 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 945 | 1256 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 784 |
| WildBench | — | 75.8% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2B better than Llama 3.1-70B?
Gemma 2B and Llama 3.1-70B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (29.6 vs 29.6), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Is Gemma 2B or Llama 3.1-70B better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (29.4 vs 30.3); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2B and Llama 3.1-70B share?
13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2B has 23 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.1-70B has 35.