+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT (Preview) vs Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct leads with 8.2% higher average benchmark score. Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT (Preview) supports multimodal inputs. Overall, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct is the stronger choice for coding tasks.
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3N E2B IT LiteRT Preview was introduced as an experimental version optimized for LiteRT deployment, designed to push the boundaries of on-device AI. Built to demonstrate the potential of running instruction-tuned models on mobile and edge devices, it represents ongoing efforts to make AI more accessible across hardware platforms.
+
+
+
+
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.
7 months newer
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Meta
2024-09-25
Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT (Preview)
2025-05-20
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 5 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT (Preview)
Average Score:52.4%
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Average Score:60.6%(+8.2%)
+
+
+
+
Knowledge Cutoff
Training data recency comparison
Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT (Preview)
2024-06-01
More recent knowledge cutoff means awareness of newer technologies and frameworks
Provider Availability & Performance
Available providers and their performance metrics
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT (Preview)
0 providers
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
1 providers
DeepInfra
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3n E2B Instructed LiteRT (Preview)
Avg Score:52.4%
Providers:0
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Avg Score:60.6%(+8.2%)
Providers:1