Model Comparison
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning)
vs. Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Google, Meta
Recommended Pick
Go Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) 11 metric wins Strongest on: Value, Reasoning, Intelligence
Best Value
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning)
100.0 value score
36.4 reasoning / $0.20/1M
Lowest Price
Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B
$0.10/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning)
36.4 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning)
29.1 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 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B is 1.3x cheaper on input tokens than Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning).
Speed gap
Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B generates about 2.1x as many tokens per second as Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) leads Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B by 20.5 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) leads Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B by 24.2 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning)
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B
Meta
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick Go Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) | Me Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.13/1M | $0.10/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.40/1M | $0.10/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.20/1M | $0.10/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Meta | |
| Release Date | Apr 2, 2026 | Jul 23, 2024 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 94.8 tok/s | 199.7 tok/s |
| TTFT | 876ms | 521ms |
| Latency | 876ms | 521ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 86.1 |
| Reasoning Score | 36.4 | 15.9 |
| Intelligence | 27.1 | 11.8 |
| Coding | 29.1 | 4.9 |
| Math | — | 4.3 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 71.4% | 25.9% |
| MMLU Pro | — | 47.6% |
| HLE | 10.7% | 5.1% |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 11.6% |
| MATH 500 | — | 51.9% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 4.3% |
| AIME (Original) | — | 7.7% |
| SciCode | 37.3% | 13.2% |
| LCR | 39.7% | 15.7% |
| IFBench | 45.4% | 28.6% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 40.4% | 16.4% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 25.0% | 0.8% |
Key Takeaways
Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B offers the best value at $0.10/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 36.4 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Gemma 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning) reaches a 29.1 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 4 26B A4B (Non-reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Llama 3.1 Instruct 8B
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
Recommended Comparisons
Popular alternatives
