Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemma 3 4B vs Llama 3.2 1B Instruct

Gemma 3 4B and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct tie on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index at 4.8, and Gemma 3 4B costs 2.7x less per output token ($0.075 vs $0.201 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 36 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Gemma 3 4B Replace Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
Gemma 3 4BGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
22.6
Output $/M
$0.075
32
Llama 3.2 1B InstructMeta Llama
Coding
No data
Overall
9.6
Output $/M
$0.201
2
vs boards won of 36 shared, 2 tied

Gemma 3 4B or Llama 3.2 1B Instruct: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Gemma 3 4B for output tokens 2.7x cheaper ($0.075 vs $0.201 per million) and a larger context window (131K against 60K tokens).

Model AGemma 3 4BGoogleNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BLlama 3.2 1B InstructMeta LlamaNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
36
Gemma 3 4B only
6
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct only
2
Like-for-like categories
7 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Gemma 3 4B not benchmarked, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
Knowledge, 42.7 points apart on average over 5 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare: Gemma 3 4B 1342 against Llama 3.2 1B Instruct 1009, 55.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemma 3 4B $0.075 against Llama 3.2 1B Instruct $0.201 per million output tokens, 2.7x apart.
Context window
Gemma 3 4B takes 131K tokens, Llama 3.2 1B Instruct 60K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGemma 3 4BBarsLlama 3.2 1B InstructTies
Coding40
Intelligence001 tie
Agentic work20
Reasoning42
Math50
Knowledge50
General1201 tie
All shared boards3222 ties
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index40
Coding benchmarks for Gemma 3 4B and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 4BLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
AA Coding Index2.7Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 4B measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)11.2%1.9%Gemma 3 4B
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)0.8%0.0%Gemma 3 4B
LMArena Text: coding12301070Gemma 3 4B
LMArena Text: software and IT12691056Gemma 3 4B
SciCode0.0%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 4B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index00
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemma 3 4B and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 4BLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index4.84.8Tie
Epoch Capabilities Index115.9Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 4B measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemma 3 4B and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 4BLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom5.0%0.0%Gemma 3 4B
BALROGNot measured6.6%Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)19.6%10.8%Gemma 3 4B
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index42
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemma 3 4B and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 4BLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)29.1%19.6%Gemma 3 4B
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)5.3%5.5%Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)23.2%23.9%Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
LMArena Text: hard prompts12531044Gemma 3 4B
LMArena Text: expert12231007Gemma 3 4B
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English12531087Gemma 3 4B
Kagi LLM Benchmark25.2%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 4B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Math benchmarks for Gemma 3 4B and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 4BLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
AA Math Index12.70.0Gemma 3 4B
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)12.7%0.0%Gemma 3 4B
OTIS Mock AIME7.5%0.6%Gemma 3 4B
LMArena Text: math12391086Gemma 3 4B
LMArena Text: mathematical work12561098Gemma 3 4B
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index50
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemma 3 4B and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 4BLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)41.7%20.0%Gemma 3 4B
LMArena Text: science13061055Gemma 3 4B
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13421009Gemma 3 4B
LMArena Text: legal and government13271071Gemma 3 4B
LMArena Text: business and finance13111000Gemma 3 4B
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Gemma 3 4B and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 4BLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index120
General benchmarks for Gemma 3 4B and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 4BLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
IFBench28.3%22.8%Gemma 3 4B
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)6.7%6.7%Tie
DTBench50.9%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 4B measured
LMCA2.8%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 4B measured
LMArena Text12911055Gemma 3 4B
LMArena Text: instruction following12391031Gemma 3 4B
LMArena Text: creative writing12701033Gemma 3 4B
LMArena Text: English13001117Gemma 3 4B
LMArena Text: non-English1273973Gemma 3 4B
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured959Only Llama 3.2 1B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: German12811014Gemma 3 4B
LMArena Text: Russian1294941Gemma 3 4B
LMArena Text: multi-turn12551030Gemma 3 4B
LMArena Text: longer queries12731050Gemma 3 4B
LMArena Text: writing and language12881030Gemma 3 4B
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12331025Gemma 3 4B
Neither model has a result on the other 30 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Gemma 3 4B and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
BenchmarkGemma 3 4BLlama 3.2 1B InstructLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Gemma 3 4B$0.0001Fits in one request
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct$0.0001Fits in one request

Gemma 3 4B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemma 3 4B$0.0025Fits in one request
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct$0.0020Fits in one request

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemma 3 4B$0.0097Exceeds the context window
Llama 3.2 1B Instruct$0.0074Exceeds the context window

Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Gemma 3 4B and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
SpecificationGoogle Gemma 3 4BMeta Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
MakerGoogleMeta Llama
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedMarch 13, 2025September 25, 2024
Context window131K60K
Input $/Mtok$0.045$0.027
Output $/Mtok$0.075$0.201
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemma 3 4B better than Llama 3.2 1B Instruct for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemma 3 4B for output tokens 2.7x cheaper ($0.075 vs $0.201 per million) and a larger context window (131K against 60K tokens).

Which is cheaper, Gemma 3 4B or Llama 3.2 1B Instruct?

Gemma 3 4B costs $0.045 per million input tokens and $0.075 per million output tokens; Llama 3.2 1B Instruct costs $0.027 and $0.201. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 3 4B or Llama 3.2 1B Instruct?

Gemma 3 4B, with 131K tokens against 60K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemma 3 4B vs Llama 3.2 1B Instruct comparison based on?

36 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Gemma 3 4B's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Llama 3.2 1B Instruct's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next