Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemma 2 27B

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 15× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #19 Confirmed

Gemma 2 27B Google

29.4

Rank #312 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 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 4.7 leads 66.7 to 10.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 97.8% for Claude Opus 4.7 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 4.7.
  • Claude Opus 4.7 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 8K.
  • Gemma 2 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7Gemma 2 27B
ProviderAnthropicGoogle
Noometry Index58.329.4
Released2026-04-142024-06-24
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M8K
Max output128K2K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.65
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.65
Results tracked6634

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 59.6 (#13), Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemma 2 27B
LMArena Coding15181211
SWE-bench Verified83.5%—
FrontierCode38.5%—
LMArena WebDev1558—
SciCode54.5%—
GSO44.1%—
WeirdML76.4%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—42.8%
LiveBench Coding—36%
MirrorCode31.1%—
BigCodeBench Complete—52.5%
ALE-Bench1,323—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), Gemma 2 27B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemma 2 27B
Terminal-Bench80.2%—
APEX-Agents49.2%—
OSWorld 2.018.2%—
τ²-bench Banking40.2%—
PostTrainBench28.6%—
ExploitBench26.5%—
GBAEval43.8%—
GDP.pdf21%—
LMArena Search1233—
Vending-Bench 210,937—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29), Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemma 2 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts15061198
DTBench94.7%48%
LMCA52.2%7.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index156.25122.08
ARC-AGI-275.8%—
SimpleBench61.7%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%—
NYT Connections (extended)39%—
ARC-AGI-193.5%—
CritPt12%—
Chess Puzzles30%—
Thematic Generalization72.8%—
EBR-Bench19%—
LiveBench Reasoning—28.1%
Mystery Game Puzzles28%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—47.9%
ForecastBench60.3—
LiveBench—38.2%

Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemma 2 27B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%1.4%
LMArena Math14991212
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%—
ProofBench54%—
LiveBench Math—26.5%
MATH Level 5—27.9%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)43.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23), Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemma 2 27B
GPQA Diamond90.2%36.5%
LMArena Expert15211172
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%—
SimpleQA Verified51.7%—
Confabulations—27.1%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%—
MMLU—75.7%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), Gemma 2 27B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemma 2 27B
LMArena Vision1316—
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—
Furniture Assembly33.3%—
LMArena Document1495—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemma 2 27B
LMArena Non-English14801217
LMArena Chinese15311221
LMArena French15031247
LMArena German14951209
LMArena Japanese14721175
LMArena Korean14641174
LMArena Russian14941234
LMArena Spanish14951228

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemma 2 27B
LMArena Instruction Following14981206
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.1%

Long Context Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemma 2 27B
LMArena Longer Query15051231

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Gemma 2 27B
LMArena Text14901231
LMArena Creative Writing14861241
LMArena Multi-Turn15051224
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1914—
EQ-Bench 41311—
LiveBench Language—32.6%

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Gemma 2 27B?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 15× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 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 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemma 2 27B better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.7 does, with 1M tokens against 8K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemma 2 27B share?

22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Gemma 2 27B has 34.

Related comparisons

Go deeper