GoogleGemma 4 31BVSMetaLlama-3.3-70B
Our Take
We recommend Gemma 4 31B as it delivers superior reasoning capabilities without requiring heavier local hosting resources. Choose Gemma 4 31B for your local setup to get the best performance.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Reasoning Accuracy: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Gemma 4 31B scored 84.3%, while Llama-3.3-70B scored 50.5% (+33.8% gap).
Coding Performance: Evaluated on different benchmarks. Gemma 4 31B scored 80% on LiveCodeBench (scripting single-file apps or clearly defined functions), while Llama-3.3-70B scored 88.4% on HumanEval (basic standalone code completion and simple functions).
Hardware Footprint: Gemma 4 31B is a 30.7B parameter model, matching or being smaller than Llama-3.3-70B (70B).
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (live-code-bench)
80%scripting single-file apps or clearly defined functions
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+33.8%)
84.3%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)
88.4%basic standalone code completion and simple functions
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
50.5%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 31B vs Llama-3.3-70B
For coding tasks, Gemma 4 31B scores 80% on live-code-bench (scripting single-file apps or clearly defined functions), while Llama-3.3-70B scores 88.4% on human-eval (basic standalone code completion and simple functions).
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Gemma 4 31B and Llama-3.3-70B.
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.