Model Comparison

Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Gemini 2.0 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Gemini 2.0 Flash is 2.1x cheaper per token.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

3 benchmarks

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.

Wed Apr 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

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
Wed Apr 22 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
Wed Apr 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

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

1.4 years ago

2mo newer
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Sep 25, 2024

1.6 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→

Key Takeaways

Google
Larger context window (1,048,576 tokens)
Less expensive input tokens
Higher GPQA score (62.1% vs 46.7%)
Higher MATH score (89.7% vs 68.0%)
Higher MMMU score (70.7% vs 60.3%)
Meta
Has open weights
GoogleGemini 2.0 Flash
MetaLlama 3.2 90B Instruct
Compare in Playground

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Google
Gemini 2.0 Flash
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

FAQ

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

Gemini 2.0 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. 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 benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.
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%.
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.
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.
Key differences include 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.
Gemini 2.0 Flash is developed by Google and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is developed by Meta.