Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemma 2 27B

Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 15× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic

60.7

Rank #13 Confirmed

Gemma 2 27B Google

29.4

Rank #312 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.8 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 4.8 leads 78.4 to 10.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 98.3% for Claude Opus 4.8 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 4.8.
  • Claude Opus 4.8 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 8K.
  • Gemma 2 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.8Gemma 2 27B
ProviderAnthropicGoogle
Noometry Index60.729.4
Released2026-05-282024-06-24
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M8K
Max output128K2K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.65
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.65
Results tracked6534

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 59.9 (#12), Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 2 27B
LMArena Coding14901211
DeepSWE59%—
FrontierCode46.5%—
LMArena WebDev1556—
SciCode53.5%—
GSO47.1%—
WeirdML82.9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—42.8%
LiveBench Coding—36%
BigCodeBench Complete—52.5%
ALE-Bench1,564—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#11), Gemma 2 27B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 2 27B
APEX-Agents48.9%—
OSWorld 2.020.6%—
Remote Labor Index8.3%—
τ²-bench Banking39.7%—
DeepResearch Bench50.2%—
PostTrainBench33.8%—
GBAEval70.9%—
GDP.pdf24%—
LMArena Search1204—
Vending-Bench 25,787—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 64.7 (#16), Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 2 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts14821198
DTBench94.9%48%
LMCA57.5%7.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index158.21122.08
ARC-AGI-272.1%—
SimpleBench64.8%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark88.8%—
NYT Connections (extended)91.1%—
ARC-AGI-192.5%—
CritPt20.9%—
Chess Puzzles34%—
EnigmaEval23.5%—
EBR-Bench28.6%—
LiveBench Reasoning—28.1%
Mystery Game Puzzles36%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—47.9%
Surface Evolver Bench87.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.14—
ForecastBench59.9—
LiveBench—38.2%

Math Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 78.4 (#13), Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 2 27B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202598.3%1.4%
LMArena Math14871212
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)80%—
FrontierMath Tier 456.1%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions91.8%—
ProofBench69%—
LiveBench Math—26.5%
MATH Level 5—27.9%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)47.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)31.3%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 61.3 (#29), Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 2 27B
GPQA Diamond91%36.5%
LMArena Expert15021172
SimpleQA Verified53%—
Confabulations—27.1%
MMLU—75.7%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 42.9 (#26), Gemma 2 27B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 2 27B
LMArena Vision1294—
Blueprint-Bench 214.5%—
Furniture Assembly42.5%—
LMArena Document1475—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 55.2 (#33), Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 2 27B
LMArena Non-English14501217
LMArena Chinese15071221
LMArena French14811247
LMArena German14721209
LMArena Japanese14401175
LMArena Korean14321174
LMArena Russian14741234
LMArena Spanish14661228

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 77.4 (#24), Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 2 27B
LMArena Instruction Following14761206
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.1%

Long Context Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#35), Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 2 27B
LMArena Longer Query14831231

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 72.0 (#16), Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 2 27B
LMArena Text14611231
LMArena Creative Writing14541241
LMArena Multi-Turn14761224
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1840—
EQ-Bench 41281—
LiveBench Language—32.6%

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Gemma 2 27B?

Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 15× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.8 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 4.8 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemma 2 27B better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.8 does, with 1M tokens against 8K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.8 and Gemma 2 27B share?

22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and Gemma 2 27B has 34.

Related comparisons

Go deeper