Model Comparison

Gemma 3n E2B vs Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

3 benchmarks

Gemma 3n E2B outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct is better at 3 benchmarks (ARC-C, HellaSwag, Winogrande).

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Wed Apr 15 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Cost data unavailable.

Lowest available price from all providers
Wed Apr 15 2026 • llm-stats.com
Google
Gemma 3n E2B
Input tokens$0.00
Output tokens$0.00
Best providerUnknown Organization
NVIDIA
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
Input tokens$0.00
Output tokens$0.00
Best providerUnknown Organization
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

62.0B diff

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct has 62.0B more parameters than Gemma 3n E2B, making it 775.0% larger.

Google
Gemma 3n E2B
8.0Bparameters
NVIDIA
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
70.0Bparameters
8.0B
Gemma 3n E2B
70.0B
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Gemma 3n E2B supports multimodal inputs, whereas Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct does not.

Gemma 3n E2B can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Gemma 3n E2B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemma 3n E2B is licensed under a proprietary license, while Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct uses Llama 3.1 Community License.

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

Gemma 3n E2B

Proprietary

Closed source

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

Llama 3.1 Community License

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemma 3n E2B was released on 2025-06-26, while Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct was released on 2024-10-01.

Gemma 3n E2B is 9 months newer than Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct.

Gemma 3n E2B

Jun 26, 2025

9 months ago

8mo newer
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

Oct 1, 2024

1.5 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Gemma 3n E2B has a knowledge cutoff of 2024-06-01, while Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct has a cutoff of 2023-12-01.

Gemma 3n E2B has more recent training data (up to 2024-06-01), making it potentially better informed about events through that date compared to Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct (2023-12-01).

Gemma 3n E2B

Jun 2024

6 mo newer
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

Dec 2023

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Google
Supports multimodal inputs
NVIDIA
Has open weights
Higher ARC-C score (69.2% vs 51.7%)
Higher HellaSwag score (85.6% vs 72.2%)
Higher Winogrande score (84.5% vs 66.8%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Google
Gemma 3n E2B
NVIDIA
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

FAQ

Common questions about Gemma 3n E2B vs Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Gemma 3n E2B is made by Google and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct is made by NVIDIA. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.
Gemma 3n E2B scores PIQA: 78.9%, BoolQ: 76.4%, ARC-E: 75.8%, HellaSwag: 72.2%, Winogrande: 66.8%. Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct scores GSM8k: 91.4%, HellaSwag: 85.6%, Winogrande: 84.5%, GSM8K Chat: 81.9%, MMLU Chat: 80.6%.
Key differences include multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs Llama 3.1 Community License). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Gemma 3n E2B is developed by Google and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct is developed by NVIDIA.