Model comparison
Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemma 2 27B
Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 12× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 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 5.5 leads 92.4 to 10.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 100% for Claude Opus 5.5 and 1.4% for Gemma 2 27B.
- Gemma 2 27B is cheaper at $0.65 / $0.65 per million input/output tokens, against $4 / $20 for Claude Opus 5.5.
- Claude Opus 5.5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 8K.
- Gemma 2 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemma 2 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | |
| Noometry Index | 68.5 | 29.2 |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2024-06-24 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 8K |
| Max output | 128K | 2K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $4 | $0.65 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $20 | $0.65 |
| Results tracked | 35 | 34 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 71.4 (#1), Gemma 2 27B: 33.5 (#243)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1545 | 1211 |
| FrontierCode | 54.4% | — |
| CursorBench | 57.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1820 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 62.3% | — |
| SciCode | 66.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 42.8% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 36% |
| MirrorCode | 77.4% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.5% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#13), Gemma 2 27B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 73.5% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 30.6% | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 79.5 (#2), Gemma 2 27B: 14.8 (#313)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1545 | 1199 |
| DTBench | 98.9% | 48% |
| LMCA | 68.2% | 7.1% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 92.5% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 88.5% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.7% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 71.4% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 28.1% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 71% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 47.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 122.06 |
| LiveBench | — | 38.2% |
Math Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 92.4 (#2), Gemma 2 27B: 10.0 (#306)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 1.4% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 91.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 95% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 26.5% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1212 |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 27.9% |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 66.6 (#9), Gemma 2 27B: 18.9 (#275)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.6% | 36.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1564 | 1172 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 72.2% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 27.1% |
| MMLU | — | 75.7% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 5.5: 56.5 (#2), Gemma 2 27B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Furniture Assembly | 83.3% | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 59.8 (#1), Gemma 2 27B: 38.8 (#221)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1513 | 1217 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1572 | 1221 |
| LMArena Russian | 1532 | 1234 |
| LMArena French | — | 1246 |
| LMArena German | — | 1209 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1175 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1174 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1228 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 80.1 (#2), Gemma 2 27B: 60.7 (#244)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1535 | 1206 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.1% |
Long Context Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 47.3 (#18), Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#213)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1540 | 1231 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5.5 leads
Claude Opus 5.5: 78.7 (#3), Gemma 2 27B: 44.4 (#220)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1518 | 1231 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1538 | 1241 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1520 | 1224 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2050 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 32.6% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Gemma 2 27B?
Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 12× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 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 5.5 lists at $4 and $20.
Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Gemma 2 27B better for coding?
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.4 versus 33.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Opus 5.5 does, with 1M tokens against 8K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and Gemma 2 27B share?
15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 35 scored results on Noometry and Gemma 2 27B has 34.