Model Comparison

Gemma 2 27B vs Llama 3.1 405B Instruct

Llama 3.1 405B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

5 benchmarks

Gemma 2 27B outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Llama 3.1 405B Instruct is better at 5 benchmarks (ARC-C, GSM8k, HumanEval, MATH, MMLU).

Llama 3.1 405B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Mon May 11 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

377.8B diff

Llama 3.1 405B Instruct has 377.8B more parameters than Gemma 2 27B, making it 1389.0% larger.

Google
Gemma 2 27B
27.2Bparameters
Meta
Llama 3.1 405B Instruct
405.0Bparameters
27.2B
Gemma 2 27B
405.0B
Llama 3.1 405B Instruct

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Llama 3.1 405B Instruct specifies input context (128,000 tokens). Only Llama 3.1 405B Instruct specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

Google
Gemma 2 27B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Meta
Llama 3.1 405B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Mon May 11 2026 • llm-stats.com

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemma 2 27B is licensed under Gemma, while Llama 3.1 405B 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 27B

Gemma

Open weights

Llama 3.1 405B Instruct

Llama 3.1 Community License

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemma 2 27B was released on 2024-06-27, while Llama 3.1 405B Instruct was released on 2024-07-23.

Llama 3.1 405B Instruct is 1 month newer than Gemma 2 27B.

Gemma 2 27B

Jun 27, 2024

1.9 years ago

Llama 3.1 405B Instruct

Jul 23, 2024

1.8 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→

Key Takeaways

Google

No standout differentiators in the data we have for this pair.

Meta
Larger context window (128,000 tokens)
Higher ARC-C score (96.9% vs 71.4%)
Higher GSM8k score (96.8% vs 74.0%)
Higher HumanEval score (89.0% vs 51.8%)
Higher MATH score (73.8% vs 42.3%)
Higher MMLU score (87.3% vs 75.2%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Google
Gemma 2 27B
Meta
Llama 3.1 405B Instruct

FAQ

Common questions about Gemma 2 27B vs Llama 3.1 405B Instruct.

Which is better, Gemma 2 27B or Llama 3.1 405B Instruct?

Llama 3.1 405B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Gemma 2 27B is made by Google and Llama 3.1 405B Instruct is made by Meta. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.

How does Gemma 2 27B compare to Llama 3.1 405B Instruct in benchmarks?

Gemma 2 27B scores ARC-E: 88.6%, HellaSwag: 86.4%, BoolQ: 84.8%, TriviaQA: 83.7%, Winogrande: 83.7%. Llama 3.1 405B Instruct scores ARC-C: 96.9%, GSM8k: 96.8%, API-Bank: 92.0%, Multilingual MGSM (CoT): 91.6%, HumanEval: 89.0%.

What are the context window sizes for Gemma 2 27B and Llama 3.1 405B Instruct?

Gemma 2 27B supports an unknown number of tokens and Llama 3.1 405B 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 27B and Llama 3.1 405B Instruct?

Key differences include licensing (Gemma vs Llama 3.1 Community License). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Gemma 2 27B and Llama 3.1 405B Instruct?

Gemma 2 27B is developed by Google and Llama 3.1 405B Instruct is developed by Meta.