The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Gemma 2 9B vs Llama 3.1 70B Instruct

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct leads the LLM Stats Score 7.6 to -4.9.

Google · Meta · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct leads the overall LLM Stats Score 7.6 to -4.9, ranking #285 overall.

In the 3 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct wins 3; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Gemma 2 9B

  • you are already invested in the Google ecosystem

Choose Llama 3.1 70B Instruct

  • overall performance matters — it scores 7.6 and ranks #285 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 3 of 3 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Jul 2024

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Gemma 2 9B
Google
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Meta
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
-4.9
#353
7.6
#285
Reasoning
-5.2
#346
6.3
#287
Coding
-11.0
#264
3.6
#214
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
0 of 3
3 of 3
Input price
— / M
$0.20 / M
Output price
— / M
$0.20 / M
Context window
—
128,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

2 shared
Index
Gemma 2 9B
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Math
-3.8#314
11.4#241
Legal
-0.1#183
9.3#130
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

16 reported for Gemma 2 9B · 18 for Llama 3.1 70B Instruct

3 shared

Gemma 2 9B outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is better at 3 benchmarks (ARC-C, HumanEval, MMLU).

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Sun Sep 13 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

60.8B diff

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct has 60.8B more parameters than Gemma 2 9B, making it 657.6% larger.

Google
Gemma 2 9B
9.2Bparameters
Meta
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
70.0Bparameters
9.2B
Gemma 2 9B
70.0B
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct specifies input context (128,000 tokens). Only Llama 3.1 70B Instruct specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

Google
Gemma 2 9B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Meta
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Sun Sep 13 2026 • llm-stats.com

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemma 2 9B is licensed under Gemma, while Llama 3.1 70B Instruct uses Llama 3.1 Community License.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Gemma 2 9B

Gemma

Open weights

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct

Llama 3.1 Community License

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemma 2 9B was released on 2024-06-27, while Llama 3.1 70B Instruct was released on 2024-07-23.

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is 1 month newer than Gemma 2 9B.

Gemma 2 9B

Jun 27, 2024

2.2 years ago

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct

Jul 23, 2024

2.1 years ago

3w newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Gemma 2 9B and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Gemma 2 9B
✓ Preferred
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Gemma 2 9B vs Llama 3.1 70B Instruct.

Which is better, Gemma 2 9B or Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?

Llama 3.1 70B Instruct leads the LLM Stats Score 7.6 to -4.9. Gemma 2 9B is made by Google and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is made by Meta. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Gemma 2 9B compare to Llama 3.1 70B Instruct in benchmarks?

Gemma 2 9B scores ARC-E: 88.0%, BoolQ: 84.2%, HellaSwag: 81.9%, PIQA: 81.7%, Winogrande: 80.6%. Llama 3.1 70B Instruct scores GSM-8K (CoT): 95.1%, ARC-C: 94.8%, API-Bank: 90.0%, IFEval: 87.5%, Multilingual MGSM (CoT): 86.9%.

What are the context window sizes for Gemma 2 9B and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?

Gemma 2 9B supports an unknown number of tokens and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct supports 128K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Gemma 2 9B and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (-4.9 vs 7.6), licensing (Gemma vs Llama 3.1 Community License). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Gemma 2 9B and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct?

Gemma 2 9B is developed by Google and Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is developed by Meta.

Related comparisons