+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Gemma 3n E4B vs Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct leads with 26.0% higher average benchmark score. Gemma 3n E4B supports multimodal inputs. Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is available on 9 providers. Overall, Llama 3.1 70B Instruct is the stronger choice for coding tasks.
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3N E4B was developed as a slightly larger edge-optimized variant, designed to provide enhanced capabilities while still fitting within edge computing constraints. Built to serve applications that can accommodate more parameters for improved quality, it expands the range of edge deployment options.
+
+
+
+
Meta
Llama 3.1 70B was created as a balanced open-source model, designed to provide strong performance with 70 billion parameters while remaining practical for many deployment scenarios. Built to serve as a versatile foundation for fine-tuning and application development, it combines capability with accessibility in the open-source ecosystem.
11 months newer
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Meta
2024-07-23
Gemma 3n E4B
2025-06-26
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 2 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3n E4B
Average Score:61.2%
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Average Score:87.2%(+26.0%)
+
+
+
+
Knowledge Cutoff
Training data recency comparison
Gemma 3n E4B
2024-06-01
More recent knowledge cutoff means awareness of newer technologies and frameworks
Provider Availability & Performance
Available providers and their performance metrics
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3n E4B
0 providers
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
9 providers
Bedrock
+
+
+
+
Gemma 3n E4B
Avg Score:61.2%
Providers:0
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.1 70B Instruct
Avg Score:87.2%(+26.0%)
Providers:9