[nl]

> They were ~gpt4o, with the added benefit that you could run them on premise.

No, they are bad models. They were benchmaxxed on LMAreana and a few other benchmarks but as soon as you try them yourself they fall to pieces.

I have my own agentic benchmark[1] I use to compare models.

Llama-4-scout-17b-16e scores 14/25, while llama-4-maverick-17b-128e scores 12/25.

By comparison gemma-4-E4B-it-GGUF:Q4_K_M scores 15/25 (that is a 4B parameter model!) - even GPT3.5 scores 13/25 (with some adjustment because it doesn't do tool calling).

Llama 4 was a bad model, unfortunately.

[1] https://sql-benchmark.nicklothian.com/#all-data

[ac29]

> By comparison gemma-4-E4B-it-GGUF:Q4_K_M scores 15/25 (that is a 4B parameter model!)

Gemma 4 E4B is slightly confusingly named, its a 8B param model

[nl]

You are completely right on both counts.

It is a 8B model, and it is confusingly named. In fact I made exactly the same point[1] when it was released and promptly forgot!

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47622694