+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Gemma 2 9B vs Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct leads with 2.1% higher average benchmark score. Both models have their strengths depending on your specific coding needs.
+
+
+
+
Gemma 2 9B was created as a more compact open-source model, designed to deliver capable performance with reduced computational requirements. Built with 9 billion parameters and instruction tuning, it serves applications where efficiency and accessibility are valued alongside the benefits of open-source availability.
+
+
+
+
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 9B
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 9B
Average Score:65.4%
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Average Score:67.5%(+2.1%)
Provider Availability & Performance
Available providers and their performance metrics
+
+
+
+
Gemma 2 9B
0 providers
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
1 providers
DeepInfra
+
+
+
+
Gemma 2 9B
Avg Score:65.4%
Providers:0
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Avg Score:67.5%(+2.1%)
Providers:1