+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Gemma 3n E2B vs Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct leads with 12.3% higher average benchmark score. Gemma 3n E2B supports multimodal inputs. Overall, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct is the stronger choice for coding tasks.
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3N E2B was created as a specialized efficient variant, designed for deployment in edge and mobile environments with strict resource constraints. Built with optimizations for edge computing, it brings Gemma capabilities to devices and applications where traditional models would be impractical.
+
+
+
+
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
2025-06-26
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 2 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3n E2B
Average Score:61.9%
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Average Score:74.2%(+12.3%)
+
+
+
+
Knowledge Cutoff
Training data recency comparison
Gemma 3n E2B
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
0 providers
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
1 providers
DeepInfra
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3n E2B
Avg Score:61.9%
Providers:0
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Avg Score:74.2%(+12.3%)
Providers:1