Compare / Gemma 3 4B vs GPT-5 Nano
Gemma 3 4B vs GPT-5 Nano
16 results from 3 sources that measured both models. Each row is in the source's own units; there is no overall winner.
| Benchmark | Metric | Gemma 3 4B | GPT-5 Nano |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Business, management and financeArena rating | 1,330 | 1,339 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Creative writingArena rating | 1,274 | 1,247 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Expert promptsArena rating | 1,260 | 1,354 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Instruction followingArena rating | 1,267 | 1,327 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | OverallArena rating | 1,303 | 1,338 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Writing, literature and languageArena rating | 1,298 | 1,289 |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Irrelevance detection% correct | 53.9% | 89.1% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Memory% correct | 8.6% | 24.7% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Multi-turn tasks% correct | 0.4% | 34.5% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Overall accuracy% correct | 19.6% | 51.5% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Relevance detection% correct | 100.0% | 93.8% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Single-turn calls (curated)% correct | 61.1% | 80.8% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Single-turn calls (user-contributed)% correct | 60.8% | 70.7% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Web search% correct | 1.0% | 72.5% |
| Vectara Hallucination Leaderboardreported | Answer rate% of documents | 67.3% | 100.0% |
| Vectara Hallucination Leaderboardreported | Hallucination rate% of summaries | 6.4% | 10.5% |
Bold green marks the better value on that metric. Where a source reports ranges that overlap, the difference may not be meaningful; see the benchmark page for ranges.