Head-to-Head Model Comparison

Gemma 4 31B vs Llama 3.3 70B

Benchmarks, API Token Pricing, Context Window & Speed Comparison

Geprüft vom GetInfoUs-ForschungsteamZuletzt geprüft: October 2026Redaktionelle Richtlinien

Beliebige Modelle wechseln & vergleichen

Select any AI models from our verified benchmark database to generate live side-by-side matrices.

Gemma 4 31BProfile

Llama 3.3 70BProfile

Multi-Model Arena Stack:

5-Model Matrix Workbench

Popular Matchups:

Google

Gemma 4 31B

Open-Weights-Reasoning-Modell

Gemma 4 31B von Google ist ein KI-Modell für Open-Weights-Reasoning mit transparenter Gedankenketten-Verarbeitung (Chain-of-Thought) mit 262K Kontextfenster, 80 Token/s Durchsatz, einem Intelligenz-Index von 81/100 und kostenlosem Open-Weig

Intelligence Index81 / 100

Input Token:

$0.00 / 1M

Output Token:

$0.00 / 1M

Context Window:

262.1K tokens

SWE-bench Verified:

68.5%

Llama 3.3 70B

Open-Weights-Basismodell

Llama 3.3 70B von Meta ist ein KI-Modell für Self-Hosting im eigenen Rechenzentrum, Fine-Tuning und volle Datensouveränität mit 128K Kontextfenster, 280 Token/s Durchsatz, einem Intelligenz-Index von 38/100 und kostenlosem Open-Weights-Zuga

Intelligence Index38 / 100

Input Token:

$0.00 / 1M

Output Token:

$0.00 / 1M

Context Window:

128K tokens

SWE-bench Verified:

39.5%

Wichtigste Unterschiede auf einen Blick

Gemma 4 31B is 1.0x cheaper for API usage (input + output tokens combined).
Gemma 4 31B has a larger context window (262K vs 128K tokens).
Llama 3.3 70B is faster at 280 tok/s vs 80 tok/s.
Gemma 4 31B leads on SWE-bench coding (68.5% vs 39.5%).

Need definitions for token pricing, context, or benchmarks?Explore AI Glossary →

Feature	Gemma 4 31B	Llama 3.3 70B
Intelligence Index Composite reasoning & knowledge score (0-100)	81	38
Provider	Google	Meta
Input Price Cost per million input tokens	$0.00 / 1M	$0.00 / 1M
Output Price Cost per million output tokens	$0.00 / 1M	$0.00 / 1M
Blended Price Weighted 7:2:1 cache:input:output per 1M	$0.00 / 1M	$0.07 / 1M
Context Window Maximum input + output tokens	262.1K tokens~393 A4 pages of text	128K tokens~192 A4 pages of text
Max Output Tokens Per single request	33K	4K
Throughput Speed Tokens generated per second	80 tok/s	280 tok/s
SWE-bench Verified Real-world software engineering	68.5%	39.5%
GPQA Diamond Graduate-level reasoning	77%	48.9%
Cached Input Price Prompt caching discount per 1M tokens	$0.00 / 1M	$0.10 / 1M

Wer gewinnt in welcher Disziplin?

At-a-glance decision framework

Coding

Gemma 4 31B

+29.0% SWE-bench lead

Cost

Gemma 4 31B

1.0x cheaper monthly runtime

Speed

Llama 3.3 70B

+250% faster generation

Context

Gemma 4 31B

262.1K tokens window

Geprüfte Benchmark-Ergebnisse im Vergleich

Official evaluation metrics verified by independent third-party research labs.

Gemma 4 31BLlama 3.3 70B

SWE-bench Verified (Autonomous Coding)

Industry benchmark evaluating real-world GitHub issue resolution and multi-file debugging.

68.5%vs39.5%

GPQA Diamond (Doctorate-Level Science & Math)

Challenging questions created by domain experts to test complex PhD-level reasoning.

77%vs48.9%

MMLU-Pro (Multi-task Language Understanding)

Hardened reasoning and academic knowledge benchmark with reduced lucky-guess probability.

84.8%vs71%

LMSYS Chatbot Arena Elo

Crowdsourced human preference evaluation based on blind, head-to-head model battles.

1410ptsvs1285pts

Humanity's Last Exam (Frontier Expert Knowledge)

Extremely difficult, closed-ended questions spanning the frontier of human expert knowledge.

N/Avs7.8%

Terminal-Bench (Agentic Coding & Terminal Use)

Autonomous multi-step tasks executed inside a real command-line terminal environment.

N/Avs26.1%

SciCode (Scientific Computing)

Research-grade coding problems drawn from real scientific and numerical workloads.

N/Avs23.7%

LiveCodeBench (Competitive Coding)

Contamination-free competitive programming problems collected continuously over time.

N/Avs42.5%

AIME (Advanced Math Competition)

American Invitational Mathematics Examination — multi-step Olympiad-level reasoning.

86%vs56.2%

Long-Context Reasoning

Accuracy when reasoning over very large inputs that fill the model context window.

N/Avs63.9%

Generation Speed (Throughput)

Tokens emitted per second during active generation streaming.

80 tok/s vs280 tok/s

Latenz & Antwortzeit

Time to first token (TTFT) and estimated end-to-end response time for a typical 500-token response.

Time to First Token (TTFT)Lower is better

Gemma 4 31B0.48s

Llama 3.3 70B0.25s

Est. End-to-End Response (500 tokens)TTFT + generation time

Gemma 4 31B6.73s

Llama 3.3 70B2.04s

Interaktiver Token-Kosten-Simulator

Adjust sliders to calculate projected monthly cloud API spending with prompt caching discounts.

Daily Input Tokens100K / day

10K500K1M

Daily Output Tokens30K / day

5K150K300K

Prompt Cache Hit Ratio50% cached

0% (Cold)50%90% (Warm)

Gemma 4 31B Monthly API Bill

$0.00 / month

$0/1M in · $0/1M out

Llama 3.3 70B Monthly API Bill

$0.15 / month

$0/1M in · $0/1M out

Gemma 4 31B saves approximately $0.15 / month (100%) under this workload.1.0x Savings

Gemma 4 31B · Strengths & Key Advantages

262K Kontextfenster und bis zu 33K maximale Output-Token (SWE-bench Verified 68.5% · GPQA Diamond 77%)
Hohe Generierungsgeschwindigkeit von 80 Token/Sekunde bei nur 480 ms Erstlatenz (TTFT)
Offene Modellgewichte (31B) für lokales Self-Hosting und Fine-Tuning über vLLM, SGLang oder Ollama

Considerations & Trade-offs

Erfordert dedizierte GPU-Hardware mit ausreichend VRAM für den lokalen Betrieb in voller Präzision
Bei extrem komplexen mehrstufigen Forschungsfragen bieten schwere Reasoning-Spezialmodelle noch tiefere Analysen

Llama 3.3 70B · Strengths & Key Advantages

128K Kontextfenster und bis zu 4K maximale Output-Token (SWE-bench Verified 39.5% · GPQA Diamond 48.9%)
Hohe Generierungsgeschwindigkeit von 280 Token/Sekunde bei nur 250 ms Erstlatenz (TTFT)
Offene Modellgewichte (70B) für lokales Self-Hosting und Fine-Tuning über vLLM, SGLang oder Ollama

Considerations & Trade-offs

Erfordert dedizierte GPU-Hardware mit ausreichend VRAM für den lokalen Betrieb in voller Präzision
Bei extrem komplexen mehrstufigen Forschungsfragen bieten schwere Reasoning-Spezialmodelle noch tiefere Analysen

Token Use & Task Economics

Estimated cost and token consumption to complete one representative agentic task.

Metric	Gemma 4 31B	Llama 3.3 70B
Cost per Task Estimated USD to finish one task	$0.00	$0.21
Output Tokens / Task Tokens generated per task	12K	45K
Reasoning Tokens / Task Thinking tokens burned per task	6K	0K

Technische Spezifikationen

Architecture, release timeline, capabilities, and modalities.

Feature	Gemma 4 31B	Llama 3.3 70B
Official API Model ID (SDK)	models/gemma-4-31b	meta-llama/Llama-3.3-70B
API Protocol	Google Gemini API (generateContent) + OpenAI-Compatible SDK	OpenAI-Compatible REST / vLLM / SGLang / HuggingFace TGI
Release Date	2026-04	2024-12
Knowledge Cutoff	January 2026	December 2023
Architecture	Dense open reasoning transformer with native thinking	Dense Autoregressive Transformer
Parameters	31B	70B
Enterprise Rate Limits (RPM / TPM)	Unlimited (Hardware-bound on self-hosted GPU) / 10,000 RPM Cloud · Unlimited local throughput / 10M+ TPM Managed Cloud	Unlimited (Hardware-bound on self-hosted GPU) / 10,000 RPM Cloud · Unlimited local throughput / 10M+ TPM Managed Cloud
Long-Context Tier (>128K/200K)	Free across full context window (only KV-cache VRAM scales)	Free across full context window (only KV-cache VRAM scales)
Prompt Cache Policy & TTL	Automatic prefix KV-caching in vLLM / SGLang (0 cost)	Automatic prefix KV-caching in vLLM / SGLang (0 cost)
Computer Use / GUI Agent	Supported (Screen coordinate grounding, browser & desktop GUI action loops)	API / CLI Tool-Use & DOM Agent ready (no raw pixel desktop click loop)
MCP & Parallel Tool Calling	Native MCP Client/Server ready · Parallel function calling · 100% Strict JSON Schema	Native MCP Client/Server ready · Parallel function calling · 100% Strict JSON Schema
Web Search Grounding & Sandbox	Built-in Google Search Grounding + Managed Python Code Execution Sandbox	Supported via external Tavily/Exa Search & E2B/Docker Sandbox tools
Official Fine-Tuning Support	Full Weights SFT, LoRA, QLoRA, DPO & GRPO RL (Unsloth / Axolotl / Llama-Factory)	Full Weights SFT, LoRA, QLoRA, DPO & GRPO RL (Unsloth / Axolotl / Llama-Factory)
Multimodal Token Billing	Text BPE (~4 chars/token) · Vision (~258–765 tokens per image tile)	Text BPE (~4 chars/token)
Quantization & Min GPU VRAM	BF16 / FP16, FP8 Dynamic, INT4 AWQ / GPTQ, GGUF (Q4_K_M / Q8_0) · 19 GB VRAM (4-bit Quantized) · 67 GB VRAM (Native BF16)	BF16 / FP16, FP8 Dynamic, INT4 AWQ / GPTQ, GGUF (Q4_K_M / Q8_0) · 43 GB VRAM (4-bit Quantized) · 151 GB VRAM (Native BF16)
Safety & Frontier Classification	Google DeepMind Frontier Safety Framework Verified	Open-Weights System Card + Customizable Guardrail Layer (Llama Guard / ShieldGemma)
Enterprise Compliance (ZDR/HIPAA/SOC2)	100% Air-Gapped On-Premises / Private VPC · Full HIPAA, GDPR & SOC2 Control	100% Air-Gapped On-Premises / Private VPC · Full HIPAA, GDPR & SOC2 Control
Input Modalities	text, vision	text
Output Modalities	text	text

Gemma 4 31B vs Llama 3.3 70B: Schnelle Antworten (FAQ)

Which is more intelligent, Gemma 4 31B or Llama 3.3 70B?

Gemma 4 31B is more intelligent. It scores 81 compared with 38 on the composite Intelligence Index.

Which model is faster?

Llama 3.3 70B is faster, generating 280 tokens per second compared with 80 tokens per second.

Which model is cheaper to run?

Gemma 4 31B is cheaper at $0.00 per 1M tokens blended, compared with $0.07 (7:2:1 cache:input:output ratio).

Which model has lower latency?

Llama 3.3 70B has lower latency, with a time to first token of 0.25s compared with 0.48s.

Which model has a larger context window?

Gemma 4 31B has a larger context window, supporting 262.1K tokens compared with 128K tokens.

Fazit

Sowohl Gemma 4 31B (Optimal für Open-Weights-Reasoning mit transparenter Gedankenketten-Verarbeitung (Chain-of-Thought), Enterprise-RAG-Systeme und skalierbare API-Pipelines.) als auch Llama 3.3 70B (Optimal für Self-Hosting im eigenen Rechenzentrum, Fine-Tuning und volle Datensouveränität, Enterprise-RAG-Systeme und skalierbare API-Pipelines.) überzeugen im Produktionseinsatz: Gemma 4 31B führt bei komplexem Reasoning und Coding, Llama 3.3 70B liefert den höheren Token-Durchsatz und Gemma 4 31B ist die kosteneffizienteste Wahl für große API-Workloads.

Häufig gestellte Fragen (FAQ)

Welches Modell ist besser für Coding und Reasoning – Gemma 4 31B oder Llama 3.3 70B?+

Im Gesamt-Intelligenzindex und bei Software-Benchmarks liegt Gemma 4 31B vorn. Prüfen Sie oben die SWE-bench- und GPQA-Werte für Ihren Anwendungsfall.

Wie unterscheiden sich die API-Preise von Gemma 4 31B und Llama 3.3 70B?+

Gemma 4 31B kostet $0.00 / $0.00 pro 1M Input-/Output-Tokens, Llama 3.3 70B liegt bei $0.00 / $0.00. Beim gewichteten Gesamtpreis ist Gemma 4 31B günstiger.

Welches Modell hat das größere Kontextfenster und die höhere Geschwindigkeit?+

Gemma 4 31B bietet 262.1K Tokens Kontext gegenüber 128K Tokens bei Llama 3.3 70B. Bei der Generierungsgeschwindigkeit liegt Llama 3.3 70B vorn.

AI Terminology & Guide

Explore Glossary →

Understand key metrics like context window, token pricing, reasoning mode, and SWE-bench scores in our comprehensive AI glossary.

Tokens & Pricing Context Window AI Benchmarks Reasoning Models Tool Calling Model Context Protocol (MCP)

Gemma 4 31B vs Llama 3.3 70B

Beliebige Modelle wechseln & vergleichen

Gemma 4 31B

Llama 3.3 70B

Wer gewinnt in welcher Disziplin?

Geprüfte Benchmark-Ergebnisse im Vergleich

Latenz & Antwortzeit

Interaktiver Token-Kosten-Simulator

Gemma 4 31B · Strengths & Key Advantages

Considerations & Trade-offs

Llama 3.3 70B · Strengths & Key Advantages

Considerations & Trade-offs

Token Use & Task Economics

Technische Spezifikationen

Gemma 4 31B vs Llama 3.3 70B: Schnelle Antworten (FAQ)

Fazit

Häufig gestellte Fragen (FAQ)

Related reading