Unverified50% confidenceBenchmarkExact time
On the BFCL tool-calling test, SmolLM3-3B scores 0.945, slightly above Gemma 4 E2B's 0.927, but the difference is not significant; Qwen3-4B (0.940), Qwen3-1.7B (0.935), Qwen2.5-1.5B (0.910), and Granite 3.3 2B (0.920) are all at the same level as Gemma.
1
Sources
50%
Confidence
Long-term
Relevance
10/13/2026
First Seen
Sources
单块TPU v5e实测：哪些小模型能与Gemma 4 E2B一战？
Related Entities
Related Claims
UnverifiedOn the GSM8K mathematical reasoning test, Qwen3-4B scores 0.915 and Gemma 4 E2B scores 0.911, a difference of +0.4 percentage points with a confidence interval crossing zero, making it the only model on par with Gemma.78% similarUnverifiedQwen2.5-1.5B scores 0.729 on GSM8K, 18.2 percentage points lower than Gemma 4 E2B; Qwen3-0.6B scores 0.599, 31.2 percentage points lower; SmolLM2-1.7B scores 0.461, 45.0 percentage points lower.78% similarUnverifiedGemma 4 26B A4B has 25.2B total parameters / 3.8B active; Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B has 80B / 3B; gpt-oss-20b has 20.9B / 3.6B.75% similarUnverifiedThe study tested four sizes of the Qwen3 series—0.6B, 1.7B, 4B, and 8B—running at FP16 precision, greedy decoding, a single frozen prompt, and no fine-tuning.71% similarUnverifiedQwen2.5-72B approaches the performance of Llama-3.1-405B across multiple benchmarks.70% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/1014580API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/1014580MCP
get_claim(id=1014580)