Gemma 2 27B vs Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct costs 2.0x less per output token than Gemma 2 27B ($0.3325 vs $0.65 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 23 benchmarks have a result for both.
Gemma 2 27B or Llama 3.2 3B Instruct: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
- Shared results
- 23
- Gemma 2 27B only
- 13
- Llama 3.2 3B Instruct only
- 12
- Like-for-like categories
- 5 of 9
Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct has a AA Intelligence Index result, 5.7.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct takes 131K tokens against 8K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Gemma 2 27B $0.0010, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct $0.0002 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Gemma 2 27B not benchmarked, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- General, 24.5 points apart on average over 12 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- LMArena Text: Russian: Gemma 2 27B 1234 against Llama 3.2 3B Instruct 949, 39.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Gemma 2 27B $0.65 against Llama 3.2 3B Instruct $0.3325 per million output tokens, 2.0x apart.
- Context window
- Gemma 2 27B takes 8K tokens, Llama 3.2 3B Instruct 131K.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | Gemma 2 27B | Bars | Llama 3.2 3B Instruct | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 2 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 3 | 0 | ||
| Math | 2 | 0 | ||
| Knowledge | 4 | 0 | ||
| General | 12 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 23 | 0 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index20
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.2 3B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 8.3% | Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1211 | 1098 | Gemma 2 27B |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1228 | 1103 | Gemma 2 27B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.2 3B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | Not measured | 5.7 | Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.1 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.2 3B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | Not measured | 21.1% | Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured |
| BALROG | Not measured | 10.1% | Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) | Not measured | 21.9% | Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index30
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.2 3B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 25.5% | Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 5.3% | Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 36.5% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1198 | 1095 | Gemma 2 27B |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1171 | 1090 | Gemma 2 27B |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1206 | 1141 | Gemma 2 27B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.2 3B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | Not measured | 3.3 | Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 3.3% | Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 1.4% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| MATH level 5 | 27.9% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1212 | 1126 | Gemma 2 27B |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1221 | 1128 | Gemma 2 27B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index40
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.2 3B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 68.0% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 34.7% | Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured |
| MMLU | 75.7% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1228 | 1106 | Gemma 2 27B |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1198 | 1104 | Gemma 2 27B |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1241 | 1115 | Gemma 2 27B |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1208 | 1074 | Gemma 2 27B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.2 3B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index120
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.2 3B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | Not measured | 26.2% | Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | Not measured | 4.3% | Only Llama 3.2 3B Instruct measured |
| DTBench | 48.0% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMCA | 7.1% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1110 | Gemma 2 27B |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1206 | 1089 | Gemma 2 27B |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1240 | 1094 | Gemma 2 27B |
| LMArena Text: English | 1242 | 1180 | Gemma 2 27B |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1217 | 1019 | Gemma 2 27B |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1221 | 1017 | Gemma 2 27B |
| LMArena Text: German | 1209 | 1056 | Gemma 2 27B |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1175 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1174 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: French | 1248 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1228 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1234 | 949 | Gemma 2 27B |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1277 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1224 | 1105 | Gemma 2 27B |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1230 | 1100 | Gemma 2 27B |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1249 | 1096 | Gemma 2 27B |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1212 | 1083 | Gemma 2 27B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.2 3B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | Google Gemma 2 27B | Meta Llama 3.2 3B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Meta Llama | |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | July 13, 2024 | September 25, 2024 |
| Context window | 8K | 131K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.65 | $0.0505 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.65 | $0.3325 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Gemma 2 27B better than Llama 3.2 3B Instruct for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Llama 3.2 3B Instruct?
Gemma 2 27B costs $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; Llama 3.2 3B Instruct costs $0.0505 and $0.3325. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 2 27B or Llama 3.2 3B Instruct?
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct, with 131K tokens against 8K.
How many benchmarks is the Gemma 2 27B vs Llama 3.2 3B Instruct comparison based on?
23 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Gemma 2 27B's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Llama 3.2 3B Instruct's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.