+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Gemma 3 27B vs Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Gemma 3 27B leads with 14.1% higher average benchmark score. Both models have similar pricing. Gemma 3 27B supports multimodal inputs. Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is available on 9 providers. Overall, Gemma 3 27B is the stronger choice for coding tasks.
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3 27B represents the largest variant in the Gemma 3 family, developed to provide flagship-level open-source capabilities. Built with advanced training methodologies and 27 billion parameters, it offers researchers and developers access to powerful language understanding without proprietary restrictions.
+
+
+
+
Meta
Llama 3.1 8B was developed as an efficient open-source model, designed to bring capable instruction-following to applications with limited computational resources. Built with 8 billion parameters, it provides a lightweight option for developers seeking reliable performance without the overhead of larger models.
7 months newer
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
Meta
2024-07-23
Gemma 3 27B
2025-03-12
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Pricing Comparison
Cost per million tokens (USD)
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3 27B
Input:$0.10
Output:$0.20
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
Input:$0.03
Output:$0.03($0.24 cheaper)
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 4 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3 27B
Average Score:72.0%(+14.1%)
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
Average Score:57.9%
+
+
+
+
Knowledge Cutoff
Training data recency comparison
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
2023-12-31
More recent knowledge cutoff means awareness of newer technologies and frameworks
Provider Availability & Performance
Available providers and their performance metrics
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3 27B
2 providers
DeepInfra
Throughput: 33 tok/s
Latency: 0.2ms
Novita
Throughput: 33 tok/s
Latency: 0.2ms
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3 27B
Avg Score:72.0%(+14.1%)
Providers:2
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
Avg Score:57.9%
Providers:9