+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Gemma 3 4B vs Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Gemma 3 4B leads with 12.5% higher average benchmark score. Gemma 3 4B offers 6.1K more tokens in context window than Llama 3.2 3B Instruct. Both models have similar pricing. Gemma 3 4B supports multimodal inputs. Overall, Gemma 3 4B is the stronger choice for coding tasks.
+
+
+
+
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 3.2 3B was created as an ultra-compact open-source model, designed to enable on-device and edge deployment scenarios. Built with just 3 billion parameters while retaining instruction-following abilities, it brings Meta's language technology to mobile devices, IoT applications, and resource-constrained environments.
5 months newer
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Meta
2024-09-25
Gemma 3 4B
2025-03-12
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Pricing Comparison
Cost per million tokens (USD)
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3 4B
Input:$0.02
Output:$0.04
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Input:$0.01
Output:$0.02($0.03 cheaper)
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 4 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3 4B
Average Score:71.4%(+12.5%)
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Average Score:59.0%
+
+
+
+
Knowledge Cutoff
Training data recency comparison
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 3.2 3B Instruct
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3 4B
Avg Score:71.4%(+12.5%)
Providers:1
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 3B Instruct
Avg Score:59.0%
Providers:1