Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemma 3 27B

Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 3 27B costs 100× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 28 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic

60.7

Rank #9 Confirmed

Gemma 3 27B Google

30.5

Rank #277 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 28 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher in 10 categories and Gemma 3 27B in 0 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 78.2 to 24.4.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 98.3% for Claude Opus 4.8 and 22.5% for Gemma 3 27B.
  • Gemma 3 27B is cheaper at $0.08 / $0.16 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.8.
  • Claude Opus 4.8 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
  • Gemma 3 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.8Gemma 3 27B
ProviderAnthropicGoogle
Noometry Index60.730.5
Released2026-05-282025-03-11
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M131K
Max output128K8K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.08
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.16
Results tracked6543

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: 60.2 (#9), Gemma 3 27B: 22.1 (#329)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 3 27B
SciCode53.5%21.2%
LMArena Coding14911322
DeepSWE59%—
FrontierCode46.5%—
Aider Polyglot—4.9%
LMArena WebDev1556—
GSO47.1%—
WeirdML82.9%—
LiveBench Coding—39.9%
ALE-Bench1,564—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#10), Gemma 3 27B: 24.9 (#105)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 3 27B
APEX-Agents48.9%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—29.5%
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: 64.6 (#14), Gemma 3 27B: 16.3 (#297)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 3 27B
Kagi LLM Benchmark88.8%40.4%
CritPt20.9%0%
Chess Puzzles34%0%
LMArena Hard Prompts14811340
DTBench94.9%52.5%
LMCA57.5%12.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index158.3130.04
ARC-AGI-272.1%—
SimpleBench64.8%—
NYT Connections (extended)91.1%—
ARC-AGI-192.5%—
EnigmaEval23.5%—
EBR-Bench28.6%—
LiveBench Reasoning—43.8%
Mystery Game Puzzles36%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—51.5%
Surface Evolver Bench87.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.14—
ForecastBench59.9—
LiveBench—50%

Math Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 78.2 (#11), Gemma 3 27B: 24.4 (#261)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 3 27B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202598.3%22.5%
LMArena Math14871312
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)80%—
FrontierMath Tier 456.1%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions91.8%—
ProofBench69%—
LiveBench Math—55.4%
MATH Level 5—74%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)47.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)31.3%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 61.3 (#26), Gemma 3 27B: 25.4 (#256)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 3 27B
GPQA Diamond91%47.7%
LMArena Expert15011303
SimpleQA Verified53%—
Confabulations—40.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—7.4%

Multimodal Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 43.2 (#20), Gemma 3 27B: 32.0 (#94)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 3 27B
LMArena Vision12951165
GeoBench—52%
Blueprint-Bench 214.5%—
Furniture Assembly42.5%—
LMArena Document1475—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 55.4 (#31), Gemma 3 27B: 47.0 (#150)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 3 27B
LMArena Non-English14501334
LMArena Chinese15091347
LMArena French14821368
LMArena German14701362
LMArena Japanese14401287
LMArena Korean14321308
LMArena Russian14761349
LMArena Spanish14701348

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 77.6 (#22), Gemma 3 27B: 70.8 (#155)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 3 27B
LMArena Instruction Following14761321
LiveBench Instruction Following—74.9%

Long Context Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#37), Gemma 3 27B: 27.6 (#288)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 3 27B
LMArena Longer Query14821333
Fiction.LiveBench—33.3%

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 72.1 (#17), Gemma 3 27B: 52.7 (#161)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 3 27B
LMArena Text14601358
LMArena Creative Writing14531346
EQ-Bench Creative Writing18401266
LMArena Multi-Turn14761344
Short-Story Creative Writing—79.9%
EQ-Bench 41281—
LiveBench Language—34.6%

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Gemma 3 27B?

Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 3 27B costs 100× 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 3 27B?

Gemma 3 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.08 per million input tokens and $0.16 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.8 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemma 3 27B better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 60.2 versus 22.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.8 does, with 1M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.8 and Gemma 3 27B share?

28 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and Gemma 3 27B has 43.

Related comparisons

Go deeper