Model Comparison

Gemma 2 27B vs Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct has a slight edge in benchmark performance.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

5 benchmarks

Gemma 2 27B outperforms in 2 benchmarks (HellaSwag, MMLU), while Llama 3.2 3B Instruct is better at 3 benchmarks (ARC-C, GSM8k, MATH).

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct has a slight edge in benchmark performance.

Fri Apr 10 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Cost data unavailable.

Lowest available price from all providers
Fri Apr 10 2026 • llm-stats.com
Google
Gemma 2 27B
Input tokens$0.00
Output tokens$0.00
Best providerUnknown Organization
Meta
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Input tokens$0.01
Output tokens$0.02
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

24.0B diff

Gemma 2 27B has 24.0B more parameters than Llama 3.2 3B Instruct, making it 747.4% larger.

Google
Gemma 2 27B
27.2Bparameters
Meta
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
3.2Bparameters
27.2B
Gemma 2 27B
3.2B
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct specifies input context (128,000 tokens). Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

Google
Gemma 2 27B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Meta
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Fri Apr 10 2026 • llm-stats.com

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemma 2 27B is licensed under Gemma, while Llama 3.2 3B Instruct uses Llama 3.2 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 3.2 3B Instruct

Llama 3.2 Community License

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemma 2 27B was released on 2024-06-27, while Llama 3.2 3B Instruct was released on 2024-09-25.

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct is 3 months newer than Gemma 2 27B.

Gemma 2 27B

Jun 27, 2024

1.8 years ago

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

Sep 25, 2024

1.5 years ago

3mo 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
Higher HellaSwag score (86.4% vs 69.8%)
Higher MMLU score (75.2% vs 63.4%)
Meta
Larger context window (128,000 tokens)
Higher ARC-C score (78.6% vs 71.4%)
Higher GSM8k score (77.7% vs 74.0%)
Higher MATH score (48.0% vs 42.3%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Google
Gemma 2 27B
Meta
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

FAQ

Common questions about Gemma 2 27B vs Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct has a slight edge in benchmark performance. Gemma 2 27B is made by Google and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct is made by Meta. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.
Gemma 2 27B scores ARC-E: 88.6%, HellaSwag: 86.4%, BoolQ: 84.8%, TriviaQA: 83.7%, Winogrande: 83.7%. Llama 3.2 3B Instruct scores NIH/Multi-needle: 84.7%, ARC-C: 78.6%, GSM8k: 77.7%, IFEval: 77.4%, HellaSwag: 69.8%.
Gemma 2 27B supports an unknown number of tokens and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct supports 128K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.
Key differences include licensing (Gemma vs Llama 3.2 Community License). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Gemma 2 27B is developed by Google and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct is developed by Meta.