Gemma 4 E2B (Non-reasoning) vs Llama 3.2 Instruct 1B

Gemma 4 E2B (Non-reasoning) vs Llama 3.2 Instruct 1B. A reliable intelligence-versus-cost verdict requires both models' intelligence scores and benchmark-run costs. Missing data is not a performance verdict.

GoogleGemma 4 E2B (Non-reasoning)Not ranked · benchmark data missing
Intelligence
6.50
Total cost
-
MetaLlama 3.2 Instruct 1BNot ranked · benchmark data missing
Intelligence
4.80
Total cost
-
Verdict

Comparison incomplete

A reliable intelligence-versus-cost verdict requires both models' intelligence scores and benchmark-run costs. Missing data is not a performance verdict.

MetricGemma 4 E2B (Non-reasoning)Llama 3.2 Instruct 1BDifference
Intelligence (higher is better)6.54.8−26.2% Llama 3.2 Instruct 1B is 26.2% less intelligent
Total AA cost (lower is better)Not reportedNot reported— not comparable
End-to-end time (lower is better)Not reportedNot reported— not comparable
Input modalitiesText, Image, Speech, VideoText
Open this matchup in the interactive pickerGemma 4 E2B (Non-reasoning): what beats itLlama 3.2 Instruct 1B: what beats it
Matchup

Compare something else

Agents: Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/gemma-4-e2b-non-reasoning/llama-3-2-instruct-1b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gemma-4-e2b-non-reasoning/llama-3-2-instruct-1b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill