The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Gemini 2.0 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 16.7 to 5.4. Gemini 2.0 Flash is 2.1x cheaper per token.

Google · Meta · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Gemini 2.0 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 16.7 to 5.4, ranking #208 overall.

In the 3 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Gemini 2.0 Flash wins 3; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, Gemini 2.0 Flash is roughly 2.1x 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 LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Gemini 2.0 Flash

  • overall performance matters — it scores 16.7 and ranks #208 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 3 of 3 exact shared results
  • cost matters — it's about 2.1x 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 3.2 90B Instruct

  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Gemini 2.0 Flash
Google
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Meta
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
16.7
#208
5.4
#287
Reasoning
16.1
#207
6.8
#273
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
3 of 3
0 of 3
Input price
$0.10 / M
$0.35 / M
Output price
$0.40 / M
$0.40 / M
Context window
1,048,576
128,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

3 shared
Index
Gemini 2.0 Flash
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Math
23.6#122
11.8#231
Vision
8.3#132
3.3#160
Multimodal
14.0#93
6.1#131
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

13 reported for Gemini 2.0 Flash · 13 for Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

3 shared

Gemini 2.0 Flash outperforms in 3 benchmarks (GPQA, MATH, MMMU), while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is better at 0 benchmarks.

Gemini 2.0 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Thu Sep 03 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Gemini 2.0 Flash costs less

For input processing, Gemini 2.0 Flash ($0.10/1M tokens) is 3.5x cheaper than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct ($0.35/1M tokens).

For output processing, Gemini 2.0 Flash ($0.40/1M tokens) costs the same as Llama 3.2 90B Instruct ($0.40/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is more expensive than Gemini 2.0 Flash.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Thu Sep 03 2026 • llm-stats.com
Google
Gemini 2.0 Flash
Input tokens$0.10
Output tokens$0.40
Best providerGoogle
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Input tokens$0.35
Output tokens$0.40
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Gemini 2.0 Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Llama 3.2 90B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct can generate longer responses up to 128,000 tokens, while Gemini 2.0 Flash is limited to 8,192 tokens.

Google
Gemini 2.0 Flash
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output8,192 tokens
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Thu Sep 03 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both Gemini 2.0 Flash and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Gemini 2.0 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemini 2.0 Flash is licensed under a proprietary license, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct uses Llama 3.2.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Gemini 2.0 Flash

Proprietary

Closed source

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Llama 3.2

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemini 2.0 Flash was released on 2024-12-01, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct was released on 2024-09-25.

Gemini 2.0 Flash is 2 months newer than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct.

Gemini 2.0 Flash

Dec 1, 2024

1.8 years ago

2mo newer
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Sep 25, 2024

1.9 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Gemini 2.0 Flash has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2024-08-01, while Llama 3.2 90B 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 3.2 90B Instruct's cutoff date.

Gemini 2.0 Flash

Aug 2024

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

—

Provider Availability

Gemini 2.0 Flash is available from Google. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is available from DeepInfra, Bedrock, Fireworks, Together, Hyperbolic.

Gemini 2.0 Flash

google logo
Google
Input Price:Input: $0.10/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.40/1M

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.35/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.40/1M
bedrock logo
AWS Bedrock
Input Price:Input: $0.72/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.72/1M
fireworks logo
Fireworks
Input Price:Input: $0.89/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.89/1M
together logo
Together
Input Price:Input: $1.20/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M
hyperbolic logo
Hyperbolic
Input Price:Input: $2.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $2.00/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Gemini 2.0 Flash and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Gemini 2.0 Flash
✓ Preferred
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct.

Which is better, Gemini 2.0 Flash or Llama 3.2 90B Instruct?

Gemini 2.0 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 16.7 to 5.4. Gemini 2.0 Flash is made by Google and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is made by Meta. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Gemini 2.0 Flash compare to Llama 3.2 90B Instruct in benchmarks?

Gemini 2.0 Flash scores Natural2Code: 92.9%, MATH: 89.7%, FACTS Grounding: 83.6%, MMLU-Pro: 76.4%, EgoSchema: 71.5%. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct scores AI2D: 92.3%, DocVQA: 90.1%, MGSM: 86.9%, MMLU: 86.0%, ChartQA: 85.5%.

Is Gemini 2.0 Flash cheaper than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct?

Gemini 2.0 Flash is 3.5x cheaper for input tokens. Gemini 2.0 Flash costs $0.10/M input and $0.40/M output via google. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct costs $0.35/M input and $0.40/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for Gemini 2.0 Flash and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct?

Gemini 2.0 Flash supports 1.0M tokens and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct supports 128K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Gemini 2.0 Flash and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (16.7 vs 5.4), context window (1.0M vs 128K), input pricing ($0.10 vs $0.35/M), licensing (Proprietary vs Llama 3.2). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Gemini 2.0 Flash and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct?

Gemini 2.0 Flash is developed by Google and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is developed by Meta.

Related comparisons