Skip to content

Gemma 3 4B vs Nova Pro 1.0

Gemma 3 4B

Google

40#339
vs
Nova Pro 1.0

Amazon

40#356
Signal-by-Signal Comparison
SignalGemma 3 4BDeltaNova Pro 1.0
Capabilities
50
--
50
Pricing
100
+3
97
Context window size
81
-6
87
Recency
40
+18
22
Output Capacity
70
+8
62
Overall Result
3 wins
of 5
1 wins
Gemma 3 4B wins 3 of 5 signals

Score History

Score History (25 data points)
Gemma 3 4BNova Pro 1.0
Gemma 3 4B

40

current score

Leader

Tied

right now

Nova Pro 1.0

40

current score

LMMarketCap.com
Interactive Price Comparison
100Kcalls/month
1,000tokens (~1,333 chars)
500tokens (~667 chars)

Gemma 3 4B

Google

Best Value
Per request$0.000100
Daily$0.33
Monthly$10.00
Annual$120.00

Nova Pro 1.0

Amazon

Per request$0.002400
Daily$8.00
Monthly$240.00
Annual$2880.00

Gemma 3 4B saves you $230.00/month

That's $2760.00/year compared to Nova Pro 1.0 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.

96% cheaper
Choose Gemma 3 4B for cost optimization

Gemma 3 4B pricing:
Input:$0.05/M tokens
Output:$0.10/M tokens
Nova Pro 1.0 pricing:
Input:$0.80/M tokens
Output:$3.20/M tokens
Tie
Gemma 3 4B

Google

40

Composite Score

Tie
Nova Pro 1.0

Amazon

40

Composite Score

Signal-by-Signal Comparison
MetricGemma 3 4BNova Pro 1.0Winner
Overall Score
40
40
--
Rank#339#356
Gemma 3 4B
Quality Rank#339#356
Gemma 3 4B
Adoption Rank#339#356
Gemma 3 4B
Parameters4B----
Context Window131K300K
Nova Pro 1.0
Pricing$0.05/$0.10/M$0.80/$3.20/M--
Signal Scores
Capabilities
50
50
Gemma 3 4B
Pricing
100
97
Gemma 3 4B
Context window size
81
87
Nova Pro 1.0
Recency
40
22
Gemma 3 4B
Output Capacity
70
62
Gemma 3 4B
Benchmark Interpretation

Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.

Gemma 3 4BEntry Level

Scores 40/100 (rank #339), placing it in the top -17% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100
Nova Pro 1.0Entry Level

Scores 40/100 (rank #356), placing it in the top -22% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100

With only a 0-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.

When to Use Each Model

Choose Gemma 3 4B when you need:

  • High-volume production workloads where API costs must be minimized
  • Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model

Choose Nova Pro 1.0 when you need:

  • Processing long documents or large codebases (300K token context)
  • Agentic applications using tool/function calling
Cost-Performance Analysis
Gemma 3 4BBest Value
Input cost$0.05/M tokens
Output cost$0.10/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.004
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$2.25
Nova Pro 1.0
Input cost$0.80/M tokens
Output cost$3.20/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.100
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$60.00

Gemma 3 4B offers 96% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $2.25/month with Gemma 3 4B vs $60.00/month with Nova Pro 1.0 - a $57.75 monthly difference.

Latency & Speed
Gemma 3 4BFaster
Speed score0/100
Nova Pro 1.0
Speed score0/100

Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.

When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.

Example Use Cases

Code generation & review

Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring

Gemma 3 4B

Customer support chatbot

Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. Gemma 3 4B also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support

Gemma 3 4B

Long document analysis

Larger context window (300K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass

Nova Pro 1.0

Batch data extraction

Lower output pricing ($0.10/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily

Gemma 3 4B

Creative writing & content

Higher overall composite score (40/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content

Gemma 3 4B

Image understanding & OCR

Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly

Gemma 3 4B
Which Should You Choose?
Our recommendation:
Gemma 3 4B

Gemma 3 4B and Nova Pro 1.0 are extremely close in overall performance (only 0 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.

Gemma 3 4B
Recommended

by Google

  • Choose for Quality - Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
  • Choose for Cost - 96% lower pricing; better value at scale
  • Choose for Reliability - Higher uptime and faster response speeds
  • Choose for Prototyping - Stronger community support and better developer experience
  • Choose for Production - Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale

by Amazon

Consider for specialized use cases.

Capability Comparison
CapabilityGemma 3 4BNova Pro 1.0
Vision (Image Input)
Function Callingdiffers
Streaming
JSON Modediffers
Reasoning
Web Search
Image Output
Monthly Cost Calculator
1,000tokens (600 in / 400 out)
100requests/day (3,000/month)

Gemma 3 4B

Google

Best Value
$0.2100
estimated monthly cost

Nova Pro 1.0

Amazon

$5.28
estimated monthly cost

Gemma 3 4B saves you $5.07/month

That's 96% cheaper than Nova Pro 1.0 at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.

Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.

Parameters & Context
ParameterGemma 3 4BNova Pro 1.0
Context Window131K300K
Max Output Tokens16,3845,120
Open SourceYesNo
CreatedMar 13, 2025Dec 5, 2024
Last updated: 39m ago

Related comparisons

Gemma 3 4B vs Nova Pro 1.0 (2026) | LM Market Cap