+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Gemma 3 12B vs Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Gemma 3 12B leads with 18.0% higher average benchmark score. Gemma 3 12B offers 6.1K more tokens in context window than Llama 3.2 3B Instruct. Both models have similar pricing. Gemma 3 12B supports multimodal inputs. Overall, Gemma 3 12B is the stronger choice for coding tasks.
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3 12B was developed as part of the third generation of Google's open-source model family, designed to provide enhanced capabilities in a mid-sized format. Built with improved architecture and training techniques, it balances performance with practical deployment considerations for diverse use cases.
+
+
+
+
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.
5 months newer
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Meta
2024-09-25
Gemma 3 12B
2025-03-12
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Pricing Comparison
Cost per million tokens (USD)
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3 12B
Input:$0.05
Output:$0.10
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Input:$0.01
Output:$0.02($0.12 cheaper)
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 4 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3 12B
Average Score:77.0%(+18.0%)
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Average Score:59.0%
Provider Availability & Performance
Available providers and their performance metrics
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3 12B
1 providers
DeepInfra
Throughput: 33 tok/s
Latency: 0.2ms
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3 12B
Avg Score:77.0%(+18.0%)
Providers:1
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Avg Score:59.0%
Providers:1