Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Gemma 2 27B

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 15× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.2

Rank #20 Confirmed

Gemma 2 27B Google

29.4

Rank #312 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 8 categories and Gemma 2 27B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 63.0 to 10.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 94.4% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 1.4% for Gemma 2 27B.
  • Gemma 2 27B is cheaper at $0.65 / $0.65 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.6.
  • Claude Opus 4.6 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 8K.
  • Gemma 2 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6Gemma 2 27B
ProviderAnthropicGoogle
Noometry Index58.229.4
Released2026-02-042024-06-24
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M8K
Max output128K2K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.65
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.65
Results tracked6834

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.2 (#20), Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Gemma 2 27B
LMArena Coding15361211
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
FrontierCode26.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%—
LMArena WebDev1547—
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
GSO41.2%—
WeirdML78%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—42.8%
LiveBench Coding—36%
BigCodeBench Complete—52.5%
ALE-Bench996.5—
AlgoTune1.47—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), Gemma 2 27B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Gemma 2 27B
Terminal-Bench79.8%—
APEX-Agents46.3%—
Remote Labor Index4.2%—
τ²-bench Banking27.3%—
Cybench93%—
DeepResearch Bench55.3%—
GBAEval44.1%—
LMArena Search1253—
METR Time Horizons78.9%—
Vending-Bench 28,018—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.8 (#23), Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Gemma 2 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts15271198
DTBench91.2%48%
LMCA55.8%7.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index155.24122.08
ARC-AGI-269.2%—
SimpleBench67.6%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%—
ARC-AGI-194%—
Chess Puzzles17%—
EnigmaEval7.6%—
Thematic Generalization80.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
LiveBench Reasoning—28.1%
Mystery Game Puzzles25%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—47.9%
ForecastBench60—
LiveBench—38.2%

Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Gemma 2 27B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%1.4%
LMArena Math15191212
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%—
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions78.5%—
ProofBench50%—
LiveBench Math—26.5%
MATH Level 5—27.9%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)40.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Gemma 2 27B
GPQA Diamond90.5%36.5%
LMArena Expert15461172
Humanity's Last Exam34.4%—
SimpleQA Verified47%—
Confabulations—27.1%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.2%—
MMLU—75.7%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), Gemma 2 27B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Gemma 2 27B
LMArena Vision1316—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1507—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Gemma 2 27B
LMArena Non-English14891217
LMArena Chinese15511221
LMArena French15131247
LMArena German15021209
LMArena Japanese14841175
LMArena Korean14641174
LMArena Russian14971234
LMArena Spanish15101228

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Gemma 2 27B
LMArena Instruction Following15231206
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.1%

Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Gemma 2 27B
LMArena Longer Query15201231
CL-bench20.7%—
CL-bench Life17%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Gemma 2 27B
LMArena Text15031231
LMArena Creative Writing15051241
LMArena Multi-Turn15131224
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1809—
EQ-Bench 41223—
LiveBench Language—32.6%

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Gemma 2 27B?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 15× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or Gemma 2 27B?

Gemma 2 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Gemma 2 27B better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.6 does, with 1M tokens against 8K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemma 2 27B share?

22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Gemma 2 27B has 34.

Related comparisons

Go deeper