Model Comparison

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is 2.1x cheaper per token.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

2 benchmarks

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite outperforms in 2 benchmarks (GPQA, MMMU), while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is better at 0 benchmarks.

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Sun Apr 19 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs less

For input processing, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite ($0.10/1M tokens) is 3.5x cheaper than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct ($0.35/1M tokens).

For output processing, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite ($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 2.5 Flash-Lite.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Sun Apr 19 2026 • llm-stats.com
Google
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
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 2.5 Flash-Lite 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 2.5 Flash-Lite is limited to 65,536 tokens.

Google
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output65,536 tokens
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Sun Apr 19 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Both Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct support multimodal inputs.

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

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 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 2.5 Flash-Lite

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License

Open weights

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Llama 3.2

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite was released on 2025-06-17, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct was released on 2024-09-25.

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is 9 months newer than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct.

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite

Jun 17, 2025

10 months ago

8mo newer
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Sep 25, 2024

1.6 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2025-01-01, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite's training data extends to 2025-01-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without Llama 3.2 90B Instruct's cutoff date.

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite

Jan 2025

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

—

Provider Availability

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is available from Google. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is available from DeepInfra, Bedrock, Fireworks, Together, Hyperbolic.

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite

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 (64.6% vs 46.7%)
Higher MMMU score (72.9% vs 60.3%)
Meta

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Google
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

FAQ

Common questions about Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 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 2.5 Flash-Lite scores FACTS Grounding: 84.1%, Global-MMLU-Lite: 81.1%, MMMU: 72.9%, GPQA: 64.6%, Vibe-Eval: 51.3%. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct scores AI2D: 92.3%, DocVQA: 90.1%, MGSM: 86.9%, MMLU: 86.0%, ChartQA: 85.5%.
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is 3.5x cheaper for input tokens. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 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 2.5 Flash-Lite 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 (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License vs Llama 3.2). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is developed by Google and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is developed by Meta.