Model Comparison
Gemma 3 4B Instruct
vs. Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL (Non-reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Google, NVIDIA
Recommended Pick
NV Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL (Non-reasoning) 12 metric wins Strongest on: Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence
Best Value
Gemma 3 4B Instruct
100.0 value score
21.3 reasoning / $0.05/1M
Lowest Price
Gemma 3 4B Instruct
$0.04/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL (Non-reasoning)
22.4 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL (Non-reasoning)
5.9 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Gemma 3 4B Instruct has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Gemma 3 4B Instruct is 5.0x cheaper on input tokens than Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL (Non-reasoning) leads Gemma 3 4B Instruct by 1.1 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL (Non-reasoning) leads Gemma 3 4B Instruct by 3.0 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL (Non-reasoning) wins 12 measurable categories, including Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence, Coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Gemma 3 4B Instruct
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL (Non-reasoning)
NVIDIA
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Go Gemma 3 4B Instruct | Top Pick NV Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.04/1M | $0.20/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.08/1M | $0.60/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.05/1M | $0.30/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | NVIDIA | |
| Release Date | Mar 12, 2025 | Oct 28, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 221.0 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 710ms |
| Latency | — | 710ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 17.5 |
| Reasoning Score | 21.3 | 22.4 |
| Intelligence | 6.3 | 10.1 |
| Coding | 2.9 | 5.9 |
| Math | 12.7 | 26.7 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 29.1% | 43.9% |
| MMLU Pro | 41.7% | 64.9% |
| HLE | 5.2% | 4.5% |
| LiveCodeBench | 11.2% | 34.5% |
| MATH 500 | 76.6% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 12.7% | 26.7% |
| AIME (Original) | 6.3% | — |
| SciCode | 7.3% | 17.6% |
| LCR | 5.7% | 17.0% |
| IFBench | 28.3% | 25.9% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 5.0% | 19.3% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 0.8% | 0.0% |
Key Takeaways
Gemma 3 4B Instruct offers the best value at $0.04/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL (Non-reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 22.4 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL (Non-reasoning) reaches a 5.9 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Gemma 3 4B Instruct
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
Nemotron Nano 12B v2 VL (Non-reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
