Model Comparison

Gemma 2 9B 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 9B 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.

Mon Apr 13 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
Mon Apr 13 2026 • llm-stats.com
Google
Gemma 2 9B
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

6.0B diff

Gemma 2 9B has 6.0B more parameters than Llama 3.2 3B Instruct, making it 187.9% larger.

Google
Gemma 2 9B
9.2Bparameters
Meta
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
3.2Bparameters
9.2B
Gemma 2 9B
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 9B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Meta
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Mon Apr 13 2026 • llm-stats.com

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemma 2 9B 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 9B

Gemma

Open weights

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

Llama 3.2 Community License

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemma 2 9B 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 9B.

Gemma 2 9B

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 (81.9% vs 69.8%)
Higher MMLU score (71.3% vs 63.4%)
Meta
Larger context window (128,000 tokens)
Higher ARC-C score (78.6% vs 68.4%)
Higher GSM8k score (77.7% vs 68.6%)
Higher MATH score (48.0% vs 36.6%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Google
Gemma 2 9B
Meta
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

FAQ

Common questions about Gemma 2 9B vs Llama 3.2 3B Instruct

Llama 3.2 3B Instruct has a slight edge in benchmark performance. Gemma 2 9B 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 9B scores ARC-E: 88.0%, BoolQ: 84.2%, HellaSwag: 81.9%, PIQA: 81.7%, Winogrande: 80.6%. 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 9B 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 9B is developed by Google and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct is developed by Meta.