Model comparison
Gemma 2 9B vs Llama 3.2 3B
Llama 3.2 3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 28.9 to 25.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.
Google
MetaSummary
- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 9B scores higher in 5 categories and Llama 3.2 3B in 3 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Llama 3.2 3B leads 32.4 to 9.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Complete: 40.6% for Gemma 2 9B and 28.3% for Llama 3.2 3B.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 9B | Llama 3.2 3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | |
| Noometry Index | 25.9 | 28.9 |
| Released | 2024-06-24 | 2024-09-24 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 118K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.05 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.33 |
| Results tracked | 35 | 18 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemma 2 9B leads
Gemma 2 9B: 29.4 (#304), Llama 3.2 3B: 27.6 (#319)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 34.7% | 23.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1173 | 1098 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 40.6% | 28.3% |
| LiveBench Coding | 22.5% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 2 9B: —, Llama 3.2 3B: 20.1 (#143)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 21.9% |
| BALROG | — | 10.1% |
Reasoning Llama 3.2 3B leads
Gemma 2 9B: 15.9 (#309), Llama 3.2 3B: 21.0 (#228)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1171 | 1095 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 15.2% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 36.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.83 | — |
| LiveBench | 28.7% | — |
| PIQA | 83.7% | — |
Math Llama 3.2 3B leads
Gemma 2 9B: 9.9 (#318), Llama 3.2 3B: 32.4 (#214)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1183 | 1126 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 19.8% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 21% | — |
| GSM8K | 84.9% | — |
Knowledge Llama 3.2 3B leads
Gemma 2 9B: 9.7 (#305), Llama 3.2 3B: 29.7 (#235)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1147 | 1090 |
| GPQA Diamond | 27.5% | — |
| BoolQ | 85.7% | — |
| MMLU | 72.1% | — |
Multilingual Gemma 2 9B leads
Gemma 2 9B: 36.6 (#238), Llama 3.2 3B: 26.2 (#281)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1188 | 1019 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1185 | 1017 |
| LMArena German | 1186 | 1056 |
| LMArena Russian | 1200 | 949 |
| LMArena French | 1190 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1144 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1137 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1200 | — |
Instruction Following Gemma 2 9B leads
Gemma 2 9B: 57.6 (#269), Llama 3.2 3B: 56.0 (#275)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1178 | 1089 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 52.6% | — |
Long Context Gemma 2 9B leads
Gemma 2 9B: 36.3 (#233), Llama 3.2 3B: 33.4 (#261)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1197 | 1100 |
Writing & Preference Gemma 2 9B leads
Gemma 2 9B: 32.1 (#281), Llama 3.2 3B: 24.7 (#307)
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Llama 3.2 3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1207 | 1110 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1206 | 1094 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 841 | 595 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1193 | 1105 |
| LiveBench Language | 25.5% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 9B better than Llama 3.2 3B?
Llama 3.2 3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 28.9 to 25.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Gemma 2 9B or Llama 3.2 3B better for coding?
Gemma 2 9B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 29.4 versus 27.6 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 9B and Llama 3.2 3B share?
16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 9B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 3B has 18.