+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Gemma 2 27B vs Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Gemma 2 27B leads with 2.4% higher average benchmark score. Both models have their strengths depending on your specific coding needs.
+
+
+
+
Gemma 2 27B was developed as an open-source language model with 27 billion parameters, designed to provide researchers and developers with a capable, instruction-tuned model for experimentation and deployment. Built to democratize access to advanced language understanding, it combines strong performance with the flexibility of open-source licensing.
+
+
+
+
Meta
Llama 3.2 3B was created as an ultra-compact open-source model, designed to enable on-device and edge deployment scenarios. Built with just 3 billion parameters while retaining instruction-following abilities, it brings Meta's language technology to mobile devices, IoT applications, and resource-constrained environments.
3 months newer
Gemma 2 27B
2024-06-27
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Meta
2024-09-25
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 5 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Gemma 2 27B
Average Score:69.9%(+2.4%)
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Average Score:67.5%
Provider Availability & Performance
Available providers and their performance metrics
+
+
+
+
Gemma 2 27B
0 providers
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
1 providers
DeepInfra
+
+
+
+
Gemma 2 27B
Avg Score:69.9%(+2.4%)
Providers:0
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Avg Score:67.5%
Providers:1