+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Gemma 3 27B vs Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Gemma 3 27B leads with 20.4% higher average benchmark score. Gemma 3 27B offers 6.1K more tokens in context window than Llama 3.2 3B Instruct. Both models have similar pricing. Gemma 3 27B supports multimodal inputs. 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 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 27B
2025-03-12
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Pricing Comparison
Cost per million tokens (USD)
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3 27B
Input:$0.10
Output:$0.20
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Input:$0.01
Output:$0.02($0.27 cheaper)
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 4 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3 27B
Average Score:79.4%(+20.4%)
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Average Score:59.0%
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:79.4%(+20.4%)
Providers:2
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Avg Score:59.0%
Providers:1