+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Gemma 3 4B vs Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Gemma 3 4B leads with 1.0% higher average benchmark score. Both models have similar pricing. Gemma 3 4B supports multimodal inputs. Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is available on 9 providers. Both models have their strengths depending on your specific coding needs.
+
+
+
+
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.
+
+
+
+
Meta
Llama 3.1 8B was developed as an efficient open-source model, designed to bring capable instruction-following to applications with limited computational resources. Built with 8 billion parameters, it provides a lightweight option for developers seeking reliable performance without the overhead of larger models.
7 months newer
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
Meta
2024-07-23
Gemma 3 4B
2025-03-12
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Pricing Comparison
Cost per million tokens (USD)
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3 4B
Input:$0.02
Output:$0.04
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
Input:$0.03
Output:$0.03
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 4 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3 4B
Average Score:59.0%(+1.0%)
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
Average Score:57.9%
+
+
+
+
Knowledge Cutoff
Training data recency comparison
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
2023-12-31
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
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3 4B
1 providers
DeepInfra
Throughput: 33 tok/s
Latency: 0.2ms
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3 4B
Avg Score:59.0%(+1.0%)
Providers:1
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
Avg Score:57.9%
Providers:9