Compare/Gemma 3n E2B Instruct vs GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning)

Gemma 3n E2B InstructvsGLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning)

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

Google

Gemma 3n E2B 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 3n E2B Instruct
Faster (tok/s)
GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning)
Lower Latency
GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning)
Benchmarks (0-1)
GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning)

Pricing Comparison

MetricGemma 3n E2B 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 3n E2B Instruct$0.00
GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning)$0.78

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
Gemma 3n E2B Instruct
GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning)
92 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
Gemma 3n E2B Instruct
GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning)
1.85s

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning) takes the aggregate benchmark matchup 1–0 across 1 categories. Real workloads usually care about a handful of specific tasks — see the per-benchmark table above.

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 3n E2B Instruct is strongest on 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 3n E2B 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 3n E2B Instruct ≈ $0.00/run, GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning) ≈ $6.60/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Gemma 3n E2B Instruct ≈ $0/run, GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning) ≈ $300/run. Gemma 3n E2B 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.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
1.06.8
Coding Index
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
SciCode
IFBench
TerminalBench
Gemma 3n E2B Instruct0 wins
1 winsGLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning)

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, Gemma 3n E2B Instruct or GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning)?

Gemma 3n E2B 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?

GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning) wins 1 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Gemma 3n E2B Instruct. 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 3n E2B Instruct vs GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning)?

Choose based on your priorities: Gemma 3n E2B Instruct for lower cost, GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning) for stronger benchmark performance, and GLM-4.5V (Non-reasoning) for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.