Model comparison
GPT-5.2 vs Llama 13b
GPT-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.1 to 23.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 9 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 9 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.2 scores higher in 6 categories and Llama 13b in 0 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GPT-5.2 leads 67.0 to 13.9.
- Llama 13b has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GPT-5.2 | Llama 13b | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 54.1 | 23.9 |
| Released | 2025-12-11 | 2023-02-24 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 400K | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.75 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $14 | — |
| Results tracked | 67 | 21 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.2 leads
GPT-5.2: 52.2 (#32), Llama 13b: 20.9 (#332)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1447 | 683 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.8% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 72.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1415 | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 66.7% | — |
| GSO | 27.4% | — |
| WeirdML | 72.2% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,294 | — |
| AlgoTune | 2.05 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-5.2: 40.0 (#24), Llama 13b: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 64.9% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 55.9% | — |
| GDPval | 49.7% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 2.5% | — |
| τ²-bench Airline | 83% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 32.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Retail | 81.6% | — |
| τ²-bench Telecom | 89.7% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 41.1% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1207 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 75.3% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 3,591 | — |
Reasoning GPT-5.2 leads
GPT-5.2: 50.1 (#33), Llama 13b: 13.4 (#327)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1445 | 728 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 153.45 | 100.09 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 52.9% | — |
| SimpleBench | 45.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 73.3% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 83.6% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 86.2% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 49% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 10.4% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 23% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 23% | — |
| DTBench | 90.9% | — |
| LMCA | 43.9% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 37.9% |
| ForecastBench | 60.1 | — |
| HellaSwag | — | 79.2% |
| LAMBADA | — | 75.2% |
| PIQA | — | 80.1% |
| WinoGrande | — | 73% |
Math GPT-5.2 leads
GPT-5.2: 59.8 (#32), Llama 13b: 24.4 (#259)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1439 | 838 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 67.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 31.7% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 72% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 96.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 15% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 40.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 18.8% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 20.6% |
Knowledge Not comparable
GPT-5.2: 59.2 (#29), Llama 13b: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 91.4% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 27.8% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 37.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 8.4% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1445 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 52.7% |
| BoolQ | — | 78.7% |
| MMLU | — | 47.7% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 56.4% |
| TriviaQA | — | 77.9% |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-5.2: 50.9 (#7), Llama 13b: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1268 | — |
| VPCT | 84% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 38.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1405 | — |
| ScienceQA | — | 43.3% |
Multilingual GPT-5.2 leads
GPT-5.2: 53.6 (#63), Llama 13b: 16.8 (#292)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1425 | 819 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1460 | — |
| LMArena French | 1456 | — |
| LMArena German | 1448 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1421 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1390 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1440 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1433 | — |
Instruction Following GPT-5.2 leads
GPT-5.2: 74.9 (#83), Llama 13b: 36.9 (#300)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1417 | 781 |
Long Context Not comparable
GPT-5.2: 44.0 (#74), Llama 13b: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| CL-bench | 18.2% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1428 | — |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.2 leads
GPT-5.2: 67.0 (#30), Llama 13b: 13.9 (#307)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.2 | Llama 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1439 | 834 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1402 | 794 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1458 | 753 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1703 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.2 better than Llama 13b?
GPT-5.2 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.1 to 23.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is GPT-5.2 or Llama 13b better for coding?
GPT-5.2 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.2 versus 20.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.2 and Llama 13b share?
9 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.2 has 67 scored results on Noometry and Llama 13b has 21.