Model comparison
Gemma 2 27B vs Llama 3.2 1B
Gemma 2 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.2 to 19.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 9.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemma 2 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
Google
MetaSummary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 7 categories and Llama 3.2 1B in 1 category; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Gemma 2 27B leads 44.4 to 21.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Complete: 52.5% for Gemma 2 27B and 11.3% for Llama 3.2 1B.
- Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper at $0.027 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.65 / $0.65 for Gemma 2 27B.
- Llama 3.2 1B accepts more context: 60K tokens versus 8K.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.2 1B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | |
| Noometry Index | 29.2 | 19.9 |
| Released | 2024-06-24 | 2024-09-24 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 8K | 60K |
| Max output | 2K | 54K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.65 | $0.027 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.65 | $0.20 |
| Results tracked | 34 | 22 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemma 2 27B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 33.5 (#243), Llama 3.2 1B: 20.6 (#333)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | 8.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | 1071 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | 11.3% |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: —, Llama 3.2 1B: 14.5 (#142)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 10.8% |
| BALROG | — | 6.6% |
Reasoning Too close to call
Gemma 2 27B: 14.8 (#313), Llama 3.2 1B: 15.6 (#304)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1199 | 1044 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.06 | 101.95 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | — |
| DTBench | 48% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | — |
| LMCA | 7.1% | — |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | — |
Math Too close to call
Gemma 2 27B: 10.0 (#306), Llama 3.2 1B: 9.7 (#308)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.4% | 0.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1212 | 1086 |
| LiveBench Math | 26.5% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 27.9% | — |
Knowledge Gemma 2 27B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 18.9 (#275), Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#307)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | 23.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | 1007 |
| Confabulations | 27.1% | — |
| MMLU | 75.7% | — |
Multilingual Gemma 2 27B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 38.8 (#221), Llama 3.2 1B: 23.9 (#287)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | 973 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | 958 |
| LMArena German | 1209 | 1014 |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | 941 |
| LMArena French | 1246 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | — |
Instruction Following Gemma 2 27B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 60.7 (#244), Llama 3.2 1B: 52.6 (#285)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | 1031 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | — |
Long Context Gemma 2 27B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#213), Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#269)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | 1050 |
Writing & Preference Gemma 2 27B leads
Gemma 2 27B: 44.4 (#220), Llama 3.2 1B: 21.4 (#305)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1055 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1241 | 1033 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1224 | 1030 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 200 |
| LiveBench Language | 32.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 27B better than Llama 3.2 1B?
Gemma 2 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.2 to 19.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 3.2 1B costs 9.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemma 2 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Llama 3.2 1B?
Llama 3.2 1B is cheaper. It lists at $0.027 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Gemma 2 27B lists at $0.65 and $0.65.
Is Gemma 2 27B or Llama 3.2 1B better for coding?
Gemma 2 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.5 versus 20.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Llama 3.2 1B does, with 60K tokens against 8K.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Llama 3.2 1B share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 1B has 22.