GoogleGemma 4 26B A4BVSMetaLlama-3.1 8B
Our Take
We recommend Gemma 4 26B A4B for superior reasoning capability, or Llama-3.1 8B for faster local inference on smaller GPU hardware. While both models run locally for zero API costs, Gemma 4 26B A4B carries a larger parameter memory footprint. Choose Gemma 4 26B A4B if you have the VRAM to support it, or Llama-3.1 8B for consumer-grade hardware compatibility.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Reasoning Accuracy: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Gemma 4 26B A4B scored 82.3%, while Llama-3.1 8B scored 30.4% (+51.9% gap).
Coding Performance: Evaluated on different benchmarks. Gemma 4 26B A4B scored 77.1% on LiveCodeBench (scripting single-file apps or clearly defined functions), while Llama-3.1 8B scored 72.6% on HumanEval (basic standalone code completion and simple functions).
Hardware Footprint: Gemma 4 26B A4B is a 25.2B parameter model requiring more VRAM, while Llama-3.1 8B is a 8B parameter model.
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (live-code-bench)
77.1%scripting single-file apps or clearly defined functions
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+51.9%)
82.3%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
Self HostLocal execution (zero API fees)Context WindowLarger
262.14k tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (human-eval)
72.6%basic standalone code completion and simple functions
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
30.4%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
Self HostLocal execution (zero API fees)Context Window
131.07k tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Llama-3.1 8B
For coding tasks, Gemma 4 26B A4B scores 77.1% on live-code-bench (scripting single-file apps or clearly defined functions), while Llama-3.1 8B scores 72.6% on human-eval (basic standalone code completion and simple functions).
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Gemma 4 26B A4B and Llama-3.1 8B.
Do you want to find a model for your constraints?
Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.