Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Google
Google
vs
Meta-llama
Meta-llama

Gemma 2 9B vs Llama 3.2 1B Instruct

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

Get our weekly newsletter on pricing changes, new releases, and tools.

OpenClaw

Deploy OpenClaw in Under 1 Minute We handle hosting, scaling, and maintenance

Key Takeaways

Gemma 2 9B wins:

  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Supports vision
  • Supports tool calls

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Larger context window
  • Faster response time
  • Better at coding
  • Better at math
Price Advantage
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
Benchmark Advantage
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
Context Window
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
Speed
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureGemma 2 9BLlama 3.2 1B Instruct
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyGemma 2 9BLlama 3.2 1B Instruct
LicenseOpen SourceOpen Source
AuthorGoogleMeta-llama
ReleasedJun 2024Sep 2024

Gemma 2 9B Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare Gemma 2 9B with:

Compare Llama 3.2 1B Instruct with:

Frequently Asked Questions

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct has cheaper input pricing at $0.02/M tokens. Llama 3.2 1B Instruct has cheaper output pricing at $0.02/M tokens.
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 0.6, compared to Gemma 2 9B's score of N/A.
Gemma 2 9B has a 8,192 token context window, while Llama 3.2 1B Instruct has a 60,000 token context window.
Gemma 2 9B supports vision. Llama 3.2 1B Instruct does not support vision.