+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Gemma 3n E2B Instructed vs Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct leads with 5.5% higher average benchmark score. Gemma 3n E2B Instructed supports multimodal inputs. Overall, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct is the stronger choice for coding tasks.
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3N E2B IT was developed as the instruction-tuned version of Gemma 3N E2B, designed to follow user instructions while maintaining edge-optimized efficiency. Built for applications requiring both compact size and reliable instruction-following, it extends conversational AI to resource-constrained environments.
+
+
+
+
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.
9 months newer
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Meta
2024-09-25
Gemma 3n E2B Instructed
2025-06-26
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 3 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3n E2B Instructed
Average Score:46.0%
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Average Score:51.5%(+5.5%)
+
+
+
+
Knowledge Cutoff
Training data recency comparison
Gemma 3n E2B Instructed
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
0 providers
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
1 providers
DeepInfra
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3n E2B Instructed
Avg Score:46.0%
Providers:0
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Avg Score:51.5%(+5.5%)
Providers:1