+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite vs Gemma 3 4B
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite leads with 18.5% higher average benchmark score. Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite offers 794.6K more tokens in context window than Gemma 3 4B. Both models have similar pricing. Overall, Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite is the stronger choice for coding tasks.
+
+
+
+
Gemini 2.0 Flash Lite was created as an even more efficient variant of Gemini 2.0 Flash, designed for applications where minimal latency and maximum cost-effectiveness are essential. Built to bring next-generation multimodal capabilities to resource-constrained deployments, it optimizes for speed and affordability.
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3 4B was developed as a compact yet capable open-source model, designed to strike a balance between performance and resource efficiency. Built with 4 billion parameters and instruction tuning, it provides a practical option for applications requiring moderate capability with manageable computational costs.
1 month newer
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite
2025-02-05
Gemma 3 4B
2025-03-12
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Pricing Comparison
Cost per million tokens (USD)
+
+
+
+
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite
Input:$0.07
Output:$0.30
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3 4B
Input:$0.02
Output:$0.04($0.31 cheaper)
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 8 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite
Average Score:63.3%(+18.5%)
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3 4B
Average Score:44.7%
+
+
+
+
Knowledge Cutoff
Training data recency comparison
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite
2024-06-01
Gemma 3 4B
2024-08-01
More recent knowledge cutoff means awareness of newer technologies and frameworks
Provider Availability & Performance
Available providers and their performance metrics
+
+
+
+
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite
1 providers
Throughput: 85 tok/s
Latency: 0.7ms
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3 4B
+
+
+
+
Gemini 2.0 Flash-Lite
Avg Score:63.3%(+18.5%)
Providers:1
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3 4B
Avg Score:44.7%
Providers:1