Knowledge
Like-for-like- Gemma 4 E4B
- 67.4
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 80.5
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 leads
Model comparison
Gemma 4 E4B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Updated August 11, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
NVIDIA
26.9/100
Estimated · Public rank #204
90% interval 17.1–36.8
Gemma 4 E4B has the higher public score estimate, 42.5 versus 26.93, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
2 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Gemma 4 E4B does not fit this workload in one request. Gemma 4 E4B has no comparable published API token rate. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
2 Shared
11 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 only
- Shared results
- 2
- Gemma 4 E4B only
- 0
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 only
- 11
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Agentic
Not comparable- Gemma 4 E4B
- Not measured
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 29.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Gemma 4 E4B
- Not measured
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 42.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemma 4 E4B
- Not measured
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemma 4 E4B
- Not measured
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemma 4 E4B
- Not measured
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Gemma 4 E4B
- Not measured
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Gemma 4 E4B
- Not measured
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 72.9
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemma 4 E4B | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 67.4 | 80.5 | Like-for-like2 vs 2 rows | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 leads |
| Agentic | Not measured | 29.1 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not measured | 42.1 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | 72.9 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
GPQA
Knowledge
Gemma 4 E4B: 58.6%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4: 75.6%Normalized gap 17.0Gemma 4 E4B source Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 sourceMMLU-Pro
Knowledge
Gemma 4 E4B: 69.4%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4: 81.6%Normalized gap 12.2Gemma 4 E4B source Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 source
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Gemma 4 E4B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Gemma 4 E4B has no comparable published API token rate. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Gemma 4 E4B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Gemma 4 E4B has no comparable published API token rate. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Gemma 4 E4B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Gemma 4 E4B does not fit this workload in one request. Gemma 4 E4B has no comparable published API token rate. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGemma 4 E4BNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemma 4 E4B
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
API model ID
Gemma 4 E4B
Not sourced
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Gemma 4 E4B
No comparable hosted API rate
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
No comparable hosted API rate
NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning model cardDocumented inputs
Gemma 4 E4B
text, image, audio, video
Google Gemma 4 model documentationNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemma 4 E4B
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemma 4 E4B
Open Weights · open weights
Google gemma-4-E4B model cardNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemma 4 E4B
Reasoning
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Reasoning
Weight access
Gemma 4 E4B
Open Weight
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Open Weight
License
Gemma 4 E4B
Open Weight
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Open Weight
Release date
Gemma 4 E4B
2026-04-02
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
2026-08-11
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Gemma 4 E4B has the higher public score estimate, 42.5 versus 26.93, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence13 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemma 4 E4B—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP423.5%SourceNot directly comparable
PinchBench
Gemma 4 E4B—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP483.4%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Gemma 4 E4B—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP436.8%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Gemma 4 E4B—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP49.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Gemma 4 E4B—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP452.8%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Gemma 4 E4B—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP436.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemma 4 E4B—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP423.5%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
Gemma 4 E4B—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP431.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Gemma 4 E4B58.6%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP475.6%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 leads this result
MMLU-Pro
Gemma 4 E4B69.4%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP481.6%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 leads this result
GPQA-D
Gemma 4 E4B—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP475.6%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Gemma 4 E4B—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP410.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
IFBench
Gemma 4 E4B—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP472.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemma 4 E4B or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?
Gemma 4 E4B has the higher public score estimate, 42.5 versus 26.93, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Gemma 4 E4B or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Gemma 4 E4B or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Gemma 4 E4B or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Gemma 4 E4B or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 128K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 11, 2026
Watch Gemma 4 E4B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.