Model Comparison

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview vs Llama 3.1 8B InstructWhich is better in 2026?

Both models are evenly matched across the benchmarks.

Verdict: Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview vs Llama 3.1 8B Instruct — which is better?

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview (by Google) and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct (by Meta) are two of the AI models people compare most. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview outperforms in 3 benchmarks (DROP, HumanEval, MMLU-Pro), while Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is better at 3 benchmarks (ARC-C, GPQA, MMLU). Both models are evenly matched across the benchmarks.

Choose Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview if…

  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped May 2025

Choose Llama 3.1 8B Instruct if…

  • you want predictable pricing at $0.03/M input and $0.03/M output
Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

6 benchmarks

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview outperforms in 3 benchmarks (DROP, HumanEval, MMLU-Pro), while Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is better at 3 benchmarks (ARC-C, GPQA, MMLU).

Both models are evenly matched across the benchmarks.

Sat Jun 06 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

6.1B diff

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct has 6.1B more parameters than Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview, making it 318.8% larger.

Google
Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview
1.9Bparameters
Meta
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
8.0Bparameters
1.9B
Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview
8.0B
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct specifies input context (131,072 tokens). Only Llama 3.1 8B Instruct specifies output context (131,072 tokens).

Google
Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Meta
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct
Input131,072 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Sat Jun 06 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview supports multimodal inputs, whereas Llama 3.1 8B Instruct does not.

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview is licensed under Gemma, while Llama 3.1 8B 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 E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview

Gemma

Open weights

Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

Llama 3.1 Community License

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview was released on 2025-05-20, while Llama 3.1 8B Instruct was released on 2024-07-23.

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview is 10 months newer than Llama 3.1 8B Instruct.

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview

May 20, 2025

1.0 years ago

10mo newer
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

Jul 23, 2024

1.9 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview has a knowledge cutoff of 2024-06-01, while Llama 3.1 8B Instruct has a cutoff of 2023-12-31.

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview 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 8B Instruct (2023-12-31).

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview

Jun 2024

6 mo newer
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

Dec 2023

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Google
Supports multimodal inputs
Higher DROP score (60.8% vs 59.5%)
Higher HumanEval score (75.0% vs 72.6%)
Higher MMLU-Pro score (50.6% vs 48.3%)
Meta
Larger context window (131,072 tokens)
Higher ARC-C score (83.4% vs 61.6%)
Higher GPQA score (30.4% vs 23.7%)
Higher MMLU score (69.4% vs 64.9%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Google
Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview
Meta
Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

FAQ

Common questions about Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview vs Llama 3.1 8B Instruct.

Which is better, Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview or Llama 3.1 8B Instruct?

Both models are evenly matched across the benchmarks. Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview is made by Google and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is made by Meta. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.

How does Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview compare to Llama 3.1 8B Instruct in benchmarks?

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview scores ARC-E: 81.6%, BoolQ: 81.6%, PIQA: 81.0%, HellaSwag: 78.6%, HumanEval: 75.0%. Llama 3.1 8B Instruct scores GSM-8K (CoT): 84.5%, ARC-C: 83.4%, API-Bank: 82.6%, IFEval: 80.4%, BFCL: 76.1%.

What are the context window sizes for Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct?

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview supports an unknown number of tokens and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct supports 131K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct?

Key differences include multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Gemma vs Llama 3.1 Community License). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct?

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview is developed by Google and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is developed by Meta.

Related comparisons