Free to start

Google: Gemma 4 31B vs Meta: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

Try both on us. Starter credit covers your first requests, then one key routes Gemma 4 31B and Llama 3.1 8B Instruct. Switch by changing the model name.

Compare routesProviders, price, context, and policy posture in one view.

Use auto when uptime mattersKeep a primary model and let fallback handle provider failures.

Same API shapeUse the OpenAI client and set the model you want.

Practical read

Monthly evidence

Google: Gemma 4 31B has more Credits provider routes, the larger context window and the lower measured p50 time to first token. Meta: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct has the lower published input-plus-output rate.

$0.45365/1MGoogle: Gemma 4 31B cheapest route

$0.07385/1MMeta: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct cheapest route

665 msGoogle: Gemma 4 31B fastest measured p50 TTFT via crusoe

1180 msMeta: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct fastest measured p50 TTFT via wandb

The price comparison adds each route's rate for one million input tokens and one million output tokens; your cost depends on your input/output mix. Prices and live route measurements can change. Use the monthly reports when you need a stable evidence window, then run a small task-specific eval before choosing a production default.

Google: Gemma 4 31BMeta: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct

Model idgoogle/gemma-4-31b-itmeta-llama/llama-3.1-8b-instruct

Publisher Google AI Studio Meta

AI IQ IQ 101#116 —

Context262,144 tokens131,072 tokens

Credits provider routes165

Cheapest route$0.45365/1M$0.07385/1M

Cached input$0.03798/1M to $0.26375/1M$0.211/1M

Privacy posturehas Confidential route (E2EE + ZDR)has ZDR route

Fastest measured p50 TTFT665 ms via crusoe1180 ms via wandb

Highest measured throughput146 tok/s via crusoenot enough data

Recent route uptime range0.00% to 100.00%0.00% to 100.00%

Modes chat chat

Google: Gemma 4 31B routes

Overview16 Credits routes
PricingInput, cached input, and output rates
ProvidersAll serving providers

Meta: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct routes

Overview5 Credits routes
PricingInput, cached input, and output rates
ProvidersAll serving providers

Related comparisons

Browse every comparison

Google: Gemma 4 31B vs Z.ai: GLM 5.349 combined provider routes
Google: Gemma 4 31B vs Z.ai: GLM 5.248 combined provider routes
Google: Gemma 4 31B vs Z.ai: GLM 5.3 Flash48 combined provider routes
Google: Gemma 4 31B vs MoonshotAI: Kimi K344 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 vs Google: Gemma 4 31B42 combined provider routes
DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Google: Gemma 4 31B40 combined provider routes
Google: Gemma 4 31B vs OpenAI: gpt-oss-120b40 combined provider routes
Meta: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct vs Z.ai: GLM 5.338 combined provider routes

Production choice

Pick a default model. Keep fallback enabled.

TrustedRouter is useful when you know the model you want, but still need provider rollover, budget limits, usage records, and a prompt path you can verify.

OpenAI clientPython

client = OpenAI(
    base_url="https://api.trustedrouter.com/v1",
    api_key="sk-tr-v1-..."
)

response = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="google/gemma-4-31b-it",
    messages=messages,
)

Questions

Which should I use, Google: Gemma 4 31B or Meta: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct?

Is Google: Gemma 4 31B or Meta: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct cheaper?

The current cheapest TrustedRouter route is $0.45365/1M for Google: Gemma 4 31B and $0.07385/1M for Meta: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct. The comparison uses current catalog prices and updates as provider pricing changes.

Is Google: Gemma 4 31B or Meta: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct faster?

Current measured p50 time to first token is 665 ms for Google: Gemma 4 31B and 1180 ms for Meta: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct. These are routed probe measurements, not vendor-advertised speeds, and update as new samples arrive.

Can I test Google: Gemma 4 31B and Meta: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct with the same API?

Yes. Use the same OpenAI-compatible TrustedRouter base URL and API key, then change only the model id between google/gemma-4-31b-it and meta-llama/llama-3.1-8b-instruct. This makes side-by-side evals possible without maintaining two provider integrations.