# Gemma 2 27B vs Llama 3.2 1B

> Gemma 2 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.4 to 20.1 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.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2-27b-vs-llama-3-2-1b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 18

## Summary

- 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 44.2 to 21.3.
- 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.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 29.4 | 20.1 |
| Rank | 312 | 354 |
| Context | 8K | 60K |
| Input $/M | $0.65 | $0.027 |
| Output $/M | $0.65 | $0.20 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | 8.2% |
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | 1070 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | 11.3% |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemma 2 27B: —
- Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 10.8% |
| BALROG | — | 6.6% |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1198 | 1044 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.08 | 101.99 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | — |
| DTBench | 48% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | — |
| LMCA | 7.1% | — |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | — |

## Math

- Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313)

| 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: 19.0 (#280)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312)

| 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: 38.6 (#226)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | 973 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | 959 |
| LMArena German | 1209 | 1014 |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | 941 |
| LMArena French | 1247 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | 1031 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | — |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.2 1B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | 1050 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225)
- Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310)

| 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% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 2 27B better than Llama 3.2 1B?

Gemma 2 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.4 to 20.1 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: 34.1 versus 21.1 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.