+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Gemma 3 27B vs Llama 3.2 11B Instruct
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Gemma 3 27B leads with 6.6% higher average benchmark score. Gemma 3 27B offers 6.1K more tokens in context window than Llama 3.2 11B Instruct. Both models have similar pricing. Llama 3.2 11B Instruct is available on 6 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 3.2 11B was introduced as a mid-sized variant in the Llama 3.2 family, designed to offer enhanced capabilities while maintaining efficiency. Built to provide a balanced option for applications requiring more than lightweight models but less than flagship sizes, it serves diverse use cases in the open-source community.
5 months newer
Llama 3.2 11B Instruct
Meta
2024-09-25
Gemma 3 27B
2025-03-12
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Pricing Comparison
Cost per million tokens (USD)
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3 27B
Input:$0.10
Output:$0.20
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 11B Instruct
Input:$0.05
Output:$0.05($0.20 cheaper)
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 5 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3 27B
Average Score:76.1%(+6.6%)
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 11B Instruct
Average Score:69.5%
+
+
+
+
Knowledge Cutoff
Training data recency comparison
Llama 3.2 11B 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:76.1%(+6.6%)
Providers:2
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 11B Instruct
Avg Score:69.5%
Providers:6