Model Comparison

Gemma 3n E4B vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Comparing Gemma 3n E4B and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct across benchmarks, pricing, and capabilities.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

No common benchmarks found

Gemma 3n E4B and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct don't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Cost data unavailable.

Lowest available price from all providers
Fri Apr 17 2026 • llm-stats.com
Google
Gemma 3n E4B
Input tokens$0.00
Output tokens$0.00
Best providerUnknown Organization
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Input tokens$0.35
Output tokens$0.40
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

82.0B diff

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct has 82.0B more parameters than Gemma 3n E4B, making it 1025.0% larger.

Google
Gemma 3n E4B
8.0Bparameters
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
90.0Bparameters
8.0B
Gemma 3n E4B
90.0B
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Llama 3.2 90B Instruct specifies input context (128,000 tokens). Only Llama 3.2 90B Instruct specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

Google
Gemma 3n E4B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Fri Apr 17 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Both Gemma 3n E4B and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct support multimodal inputs.

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

Gemma 3n E4B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemma 3n E4B 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.

Gemma 3n E4B

Proprietary

Closed source

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Llama 3.2

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemma 3n E4B was released on 2025-06-26, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct was released on 2024-09-25.

Gemma 3n E4B is 9 months newer than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct.

Gemma 3n E4B

Jun 26, 2025

9 months ago

9mo newer
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Sep 25, 2024

1.6 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Gemma 3n E4B has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2024-06-01, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Gemma 3n E4B's training data extends to 2024-06-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without Llama 3.2 90B Instruct's cutoff date.

Gemma 3n E4B

Jun 2024

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

—

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Google
Meta
Larger context window (128,000 tokens)
Has open weights

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Google
Gemma 3n E4B
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

FAQ

Common questions about Gemma 3n E4B vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Gemma 3n E4B (Google) and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct (Meta) each have strengths in different areas. Compare their benchmark scores, pricing, context windows, and capabilities above to determine which fits your needs.
Gemma 3n E4B scores ARC-E: 81.6%, BoolQ: 81.6%, PIQA: 81.0%, HellaSwag: 78.6%, Winogrande: 71.7%. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct scores AI2D: 92.3%, DocVQA: 90.1%, MGSM: 86.9%, MMLU: 86.0%, ChartQA: 85.5%.
Gemma 3n E4B supports an unknown number of 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 licensing (Proprietary vs Llama 3.2). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Gemma 3n E4B is developed by Google and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is developed by Meta.