The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Gemma 2 27B vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct leads the LLM Stats Score 5.7 to -0.2.

Google · Meta · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct leads the overall LLM Stats Score 5.7 to -0.2, ranking #278 overall.

In the 2 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Llama 3.2 90B Instruct wins 2; 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 27B

  • you are already invested in the Google ecosystem

Choose Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

  • overall performance matters — it scores 5.7 and ranks #278 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 2 of 2 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2024

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Core performance indexes
-0.2
#308
5.7
#278
-0.6
#305
7.2
#264
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
0 of 2
2 of 2
Input price
— / M
$0.35 / M
Output price
— / M
$0.40 / M
Context window
128,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Gemma 2 27B
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
-0.2#282
11.8#227
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

16 reported for Gemma 2 27B · 13 for Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

2 shared

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.

Sat Aug 29 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

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
Sat Aug 29 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

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

2.2 years ago

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Sep 25, 2024

1.9 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

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Gemma 2 27B and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Gemma 2 27B
✓ Preferred
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Open in Playground

FAQ

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

Which is better, Gemma 2 27B or Llama 3.2 90B Instruct?

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct leads the LLM Stats Score 5.7 to -0.2. 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 capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Gemma 2 27B compare to Llama 3.2 90B Instruct in benchmarks?

Gemma 2 27B scores ARC-E: 88.6%, HellaSwag: 86.4%, BoolQ: 84.8%, TriviaQA: 83.7%, Winogrande: 83.7%. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct scores AI2D: 92.3%, DocVQA: 90.1%, MGSM: 86.9%, MMLU: 86.0%, ChartQA: 85.5%.

What are the context window sizes for Gemma 2 27B and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct?

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.

What are the main differences between Gemma 2 27B and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (-0.2 vs 5.7), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (Gemma vs Llama 3.2). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Gemma 2 27B and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct?

Gemma 2 27B is developed by Google and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is developed by Meta.