Compare/Gemma 3 4B Instruct vs GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning)

Gemma 3 4B InstructvsGLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning)

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

Google

Gemma 3 4B Instruct

Input
$0/M
Output
$0/M
Speed
TTFT
Z AI

GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning)

Input
$0.6/M
Output
$1.8/M
Speed
92 tok/s
TTFT
1.85s

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Gemma 3 4B Instruct
Faster (tok/s)
GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning)
Lower Latency
GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning)
Benchmarks (1-1)
Tie

Pricing Comparison

MetricGemma 3 4B InstructGLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning)
Input ($/M tokens)$0$0.6
Output ($/M tokens)$0$1.8
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
Gemma 3 4B Instruct$0.00
GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning)$0.78

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
Gemma 3 4B Instruct
GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning)
92 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
Gemma 3 4B Instruct
GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning)
1.85s

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. Gemma 3 4B Instruct and GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning) split the benchmark comparison evenly at 1–1. The tiebreaker here is price, speed, and what you actually run them on.

Pricing. Pricing varies significantly between these models — check the table above for the exact per-token rates. Many production workloads actually surface input-token cost (retrieval-augmented prompts, code-context windows), so factor both directions.

Strengths. Gemma 3 4B Instruct is strongest on Coding Index (2.7), Intelligence Index (1.0). GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning) leads on Intelligence Index (6.8).

Speed. Speed data is incomplete for this pair; benchmark and price should decide.

Provider. Google and Z AI sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Google tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Z AI often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.

Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): Gemma 3 4B Instruct costs $0.00 ($0/year); GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning) costs $45.00 ($540/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Gemma 3 4B Instruct ≈ $0.00/run, GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning) ≈ $6.60/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Gemma 3 4B Instruct ≈ $0/run, GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning) ≈ $300/run. Gemma 3 4B Instruct becomes more attractive at higher volume — the absolute per-token pricing difference compounds when you ship at scale.

Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.

Head-to-head deltas

  • Benchmark wins tie exactly at 1–1. The tiebreaker on raw benchmark parity will be price, speed, or capability coverage.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
1.06.8
Coding Index
2.7
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
SciCode
IFBench
TerminalBench
Gemma 3 4B Instruct1 wins
1 winsGLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning)

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, Gemma 3 4B Instruct or GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning)?

Gemma 3 4B Instruct is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.00/M tokens vs $0.90/M for GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning).

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

It's a tie — both models win 1 benchmarks each across 12 evaluated categories. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning) generates tokens faster at 92 tok/s vs — tok/s. However, GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning) has lower time-to-first-token (1.85s vs —s).

When should I use Gemma 3 4B Instruct vs GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning)?

Choose based on your priorities: Gemma 3 4B Instruct for lower cost, both perform similarly on benchmarks, and GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning) for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.