+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Gemma 3n E4B vs Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct leads with 4.1% higher average benchmark score. Gemma 3n E4B supports multimodal inputs. Both models have their strengths depending on your specific coding needs.
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3N E4B was developed as a slightly larger edge-optimized variant, designed to provide enhanced capabilities while still fitting within edge computing constraints. Built to serve applications that can accommodate more parameters for improved quality, it expands the range of edge deployment options.
+
+
+
+
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 E4B
2025-06-26
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 2 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3n E4B
Average Score:70.1%
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Average Score:74.2%(+4.1%)
+
+
+
+
Knowledge Cutoff
Training data recency comparison
Gemma 3n E4B
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 E4B
0 providers
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
1 providers
DeepInfra
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3n E4B
Avg Score:70.1%
Providers:0
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Avg Score:74.2%(+4.1%)
Providers:1