Model Comparison

Gemma 2 27B vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

2 benchmarks

Gemma 2 27B outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is better at 2 benchmarks (MATH, MMLU).

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Wed Apr 01 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
Wed Apr 01 2026 • llm-stats.com
Google
Gemma 2 27B
Input tokens$0.00
Output tokens$0.00
Best providerUnknown Organization
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Input tokens$0.35
Output tokens$0.40
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

62.8B diff

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct has 62.8B more parameters than Gemma 2 27B, making it 230.9% larger.

Google
Gemma 2 27B
27.2Bparameters
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
90.0Bparameters
27.2B
Gemma 2 27B
90.0B
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Llama 3.2 90B Instruct specifies input context (128,000 tokens). Only Llama 3.2 90B Instruct specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

Google
Gemma 2 27B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Wed Apr 01 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct supports multimodal inputs, whereas Gemma 2 27B does not.

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Gemma 2 27B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemma 2 27B is licensed under Gemma, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct uses Llama 3.2.

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 90B Instruct

Llama 3.2

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemma 2 27B was released on 2024-06-27, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct was released on 2024-09-25.

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is 3 months newer than Gemma 2 27B.

Gemma 2 27B

Jun 27, 2024

1.8 years ago

Llama 3.2 90B 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
Meta
Larger context window (128,000 tokens)
Supports multimodal inputs
Higher MATH score (68.0% vs 42.3%)
Higher MMLU score (86.0% vs 75.2%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Google
Gemma 2 27B
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

FAQ

Common questions about Gemma 2 27B vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Gemma 2 27B is made by Google and Llama 3.2 90B 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 90B Instruct scores AI2D: 92.3%, DocVQA: 90.1%, MGSM: 86.9%, MMLU: 86.0%, ChartQA: 85.5%.
Gemma 2 27B supports an unknown number of tokens and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct supports 128K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.
Key differences include multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (Gemma vs Llama 3.2). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Gemma 2 27B is developed by Google and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is developed by Meta.