Model comparison
Gemma 3 27B vs Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.5 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 3 27B costs 16× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 3 27B scores higher in 0 categories and Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent in 9 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads 42.4 to 16.3.
- Gemma 3 27B is cheaper at $0.08 / $0.16 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $2.50 for Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent.
- Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
- Gemma 3 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemma 3 27B | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | |
| Noometry Index | 30.5 | 45.5 |
| Released | 2025-03-11 | 2026-03-09 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 131K | 1M |
| Max output | 8K | 30K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.08 | $1.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.16 | $2.50 |
| Results tracked | 43 | 20 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
Gemma 3 27B: 22.1 (#329), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 42.4 (#91)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1322 | 1458 |
| Aider Polyglot | 4.9% | — |
| SciCode | 21.2% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 39.9% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemma 3 27B: 24.9 (#105), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 29.5% | — |
| LMArena Search | — | 1204 |
Reasoning Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
Gemma 3 27B: 16.3 (#297), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 42.4 (#44)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1340 | 1448 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 40.4% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 89.6% |
| CritPt | 0% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 43.8% | — |
| DTBench | 52.5% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 51.5% | — |
| LMCA | 12.3% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 130.04 | — |
| LiveBench | 50% | — |
Math Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
Gemma 3 27B: 24.4 (#261), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 36.6 (#106)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1312 | 1441 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 22.5% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 55.4% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 74% | — |
Knowledge Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
Gemma 3 27B: 25.4 (#256), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 39.7 (#116)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1303 | 1445 |
| GPQA Diamond | 47.7% | — |
| Confabulations | 40.3% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.4% | — |
Multimodal Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
Gemma 3 27B: 32.0 (#94), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 39.8 (#44)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1165 | 1259 |
| GeoBench | 52% | — |
Multilingual Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
Gemma 3 27B: 47.0 (#150), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 54.6 (#40)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1334 | 1440 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1347 | 1475 |
| LMArena French | 1368 | 1467 |
| LMArena German | 1362 | 1456 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1287 | 1405 |
| LMArena Korean | 1308 | 1416 |
| LMArena Russian | 1349 | 1457 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1348 | 1447 |
Instruction Following Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
Gemma 3 27B: 70.8 (#155), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 75.0 (#80)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1321 | 1420 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 74.9% | — |
Long Context Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
Gemma 3 27B: 27.6 (#288), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 43.7 (#84)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1333 | 1430 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 33.3% | — |
Writing & Preference Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent leads
Gemma 3 27B: 52.7 (#161), Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent: 64.1 (#57)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1358 | 1450 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1346 | 1435 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1344 | 1451 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 79.9% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1266 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 34.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 3 27B better than Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent?
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.5 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 3 27B costs 16× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 3 27B or Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent?
Gemma 3 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.08 per million input tokens and $0.16 per million output tokens; Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent lists at $1.25 and $2.50.
Is Gemma 3 27B or Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent better for coding?
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.4 versus 22.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent does, with 1M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 3 27B and Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 3 27B has 43 scored results on Noometry and Grok 4.20 Multi-Agent has 20.