Updated March 26, 2026· Based on independent benchmark data
GPT-5.4 (xhigh) leads in intelligence with a score of 57.2 vs 4.8. For speed, GPT-5.4 (xhigh) wins at 77 tok/s vs 41 tok/s.
| Metric | Gemma 3n E2B Instruct | GPT-5.4 (xhigh) |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence Score | 4.8 | 57.2 |
| Coding Score | 2.2 | 57.3 |
| Math Score | 10.3 | N/A |
| Speed (tok/s) | 41 tok/s | 77 tok/s |
| Latency (TTFT) | 0.41s | 181.82s |
| Input Price / 1M tokens | Free | $2.50 |
| Output Price / 1M tokens | Free | $15 |
| Context Window | N/A | N/A |
| Max Output Tokens | N/A | N/A |
| Input Modalities | Text | Text |
GPT-5.4 (xhigh) outperforms Gemma 3n E2B Instruct on the intelligence index with a score of 57.2 compared to 4.8. For coding tasks, GPT-5.4 (xhigh) has the edge with a coding score of 57.3 vs 2.2.
GPT-5.4 (xhigh) generates output significantly faster at 77 tok/s compared to Gemma 3n E2B Instruct's 41 tok/s, making it 1.9x faster for streaming responses. Time to first token is 0.41s for Gemma 3n E2B Instruct vs 181.82s for GPT-5.4 (xhigh), which affects perceived responsiveness in interactive applications.
Gemma 3n E2B Instruct is completely free, while GPT-5.4 (xhigh) costs $2.50/1M input tokens and $15/1M output tokens.
Choose GPT-5.4 (xhigh) when you need higher intelligence (57.2), stronger coding performance (57.3), faster output (77 tok/s).
GPT-5.4 (xhigh) scores higher on coding benchmarks (57.3 vs 2.2), making it the better choice for programming tasks.
GPT-5.4 (xhigh) is faster, producing output at 77 tok/s compared to Gemma 3n E2B Instruct's 41 tok/s.
No, Gemma 3n E2B Instruct does not support image input. Neither model supports image input.
It depends on your priorities. GPT-5.4 (xhigh) scores higher on intelligence (57.2), but Gemma 3n E2B Instruct may be better for specific use cases like cost savings or speed-critical applications.
Data last synced: March 26, 2026
| Output Modalities | Text | Text |
| Free Tier | Yes | No |