Make AI phone calls with one API call

Start for free

Model Comparison

Gemma 2 27B vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

3 benchmarks

Gemma 2 27B outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is better at 3 benchmarks (HumanEval, MATH, MMLU).

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Fri Apr 24 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

CallingBox

Done comparing? Ship the phone agent.

One API for outbound and inbound calls.

Start for freeRead the docs
$0.05 /min all-in7 lines of code

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Cost data unavailable.

Lowest available price from all providers
Fri Apr 24 2026 • llm-stats.com
Google
Gemma 2 27B
Input tokens$0.00
Output tokens$0.00
Best providerUnknown Organization
Meta
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Input tokens$0.20
Output tokens$0.20
Best providerLambda
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

42.8B diff

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct has 42.8B more parameters than Gemma 2 27B, making it 157.4% larger.

Google
Gemma 2 27B
27.2Bparameters
Meta
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
70.0Bparameters
27.2B
Gemma 2 27B
70.0B
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct specifies input context (128,000 tokens). Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

Google
Gemma 2 27B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Meta
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Fri Apr 24 2026 • llm-stats.com

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemma 2 27B is licensed under Gemma, while Llama 3.3 70B Instruct uses Llama 3.3 Community License Agreement.

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

Gemma 2 27B

Gemma

Open weights

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct

Llama 3.3 Community License Agreement

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemma 2 27B was released on 2024-06-27, while Llama 3.3 70B Instruct was released on 2024-12-06.

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is 5 months newer than Gemma 2 27B.

Gemma 2 27B

Jun 27, 2024

1.8 years ago

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct

Dec 6, 2024

1.4 years ago

5mo 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)
Higher HumanEval score (88.4% vs 51.8%)
Higher MATH score (77.0% vs 42.3%)
Higher MMLU score (86.0% vs 75.2%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Google
Gemma 2 27B
Meta
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct

FAQ

Common questions about Gemma 2 27B vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct

Llama 3.3 70B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Gemma 2 27B is made by Google and Llama 3.3 70B 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 3.3 70B Instruct scores IFEval: 92.1%, MGSM: 91.1%, HumanEval: 88.4%, MBPP EvalPlus: 87.6%, MMLU: 86.0%.
Gemma 2 27B supports an unknown number of tokens and Llama 3.3 70B 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 3.3 Community License Agreement). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Gemma 2 27B is developed by Google and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct is developed by Meta.