Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Llama 3.1 405B Instruct
Gemini 2.0 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Gemini 2.0 Flash is 5.1x cheaper per token.
Google · Meta · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Gemini 2.0 Flash outperforms in 3 benchmarks (GPQA, MATH, MMLU-Pro), while Llama 3.1 405B Instruct is better at 0 benchmarks. Gemini 2.0 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
On price, Gemini 2.0 Flash is roughly 5.1x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Gemini 2.0 Flash also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current benchmark, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Gemini 2.0 Flash
- you want the strongest raw capability — it leads on 3 of 3 shared benchmarks
- cost matters — it's about 5.1x cheaper per token
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Dec 2024
Choose Llama 3.1 405B Instruct
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Performance Benchmarks
Comparative analysis across standard metrics
Gemini 2.0 Flash outperforms in 3 benchmarks (GPQA, MATH, MMLU-Pro), while Llama 3.1 405B Instruct is better at 0 benchmarks.
Gemini 2.0 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Arena Performance
Playground indexes and blind preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Gemini 2.0 Flash ($0.10/1M tokens) is 8.9x cheaper than Llama 3.1 405B Instruct ($0.89/1M tokens).
For output processing, Gemini 2.0 Flash ($0.40/1M tokens) is 2.2x cheaper than Llama 3.1 405B Instruct ($0.89/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Llama 3.1 405B Instruct is more expensive than Gemini 2.0 Flash.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Gemini 2.0 Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Llama 3.1 405B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Llama 3.1 405B Instruct can generate longer responses up to 128,000 tokens, while Gemini 2.0 Flash is limited to 8,192 tokens.
Input Capabilities
Supported data types and modalities
Gemini 2.0 Flash supports multimodal inputs, whereas Llama 3.1 405B Instruct does not.
Gemini 2.0 Flash can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
Gemini 2.0 Flash
Llama 3.1 405B Instruct
License
Usage and distribution terms
Gemini 2.0 Flash is licensed under a proprietary license, while Llama 3.1 405B Instruct uses Llama 3.1 Community License.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Proprietary
Closed source
Llama 3.1 Community License
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Gemini 2.0 Flash was released on 2024-12-01, while Llama 3.1 405B Instruct was released on 2024-07-23.
Gemini 2.0 Flash is 4 months newer than Llama 3.1 405B Instruct.
Dec 1, 2024
1.7 years ago
4mo newerJul 23, 2024
2.1 years ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Gemini 2.0 Flash has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2024-08-01, while Llama 3.1 405B Instruct's cutoff date is not specified.
We can confirm Gemini 2.0 Flash's training data extends to 2024-08-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without Llama 3.1 405B Instruct's cutoff date.
Aug 2024
—
Provider Availability
Gemini 2.0 Flash is available from Google. Llama 3.1 405B Instruct is available from Lambda, DeepInfra, Fireworks, Bedrock, Together, Hyperbolic, Google, Replicate.
Gemini 2.0 Flash
Llama 3.1 405B Instruct
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Gemini 2.0 Flash and Llama 3.1 405B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Llama 3.1 405B Instruct.