Model comparison
Gemma 3 27B vs Kimi K2.7 Code
Kimi K2.7 Code is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.3 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 3 27B costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Kimi K2.7 Code's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 6 shared benchmarks.
GoogleSummary
- They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 3 27B scores higher in 1 category and Kimi K2.7 Code in 4 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Kimi K2.7 Code leads 53.5 to 25.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 22.5% for Gemma 3 27B and 95.6% for Kimi K2.7 Code.
- Gemma 3 27B is cheaper at $0.08 / $0.16 per million input/output tokens, against $0.95 / $4 for Kimi K2.7 Code.
- Kimi K2.7 Code accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 131K.
Side by side
| Gemma 3 27B | Kimi K2.7 Code | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Moonshot AI | |
| Noometry Index | 30.8 | 43.3 |
| Released | 2025-03-11 | 2026-06-12 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 131K | 262K |
| Max output | 8K | 262K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.08 | $0.95 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.16 | $4 |
| Results tracked | 43 | 19 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Kimi K2.7 Code leads
Gemma 3 27B: 22.5 (#334), Kimi K2.7 Code: 42.9 (#95)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 21.2% | 47.5% |
| DeepSWE | — | 30.5% |
| FrontierCode | — | 30.1% |
| Aider Polyglot | 4.9% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1473 |
| WeirdML | — | 54.1% |
| LiveBench Coding | 39.9% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1322 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 886.23 |
Agentic & Tool Use Gemma 3 27B leads
Gemma 3 27B: 25.1 (#110), Kimi K2.7 Code: 24.0 (#122)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 37.6% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 29.5% | — |
| GBAEval | — | 0.9% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 5,083 |
Reasoning Kimi K2.7 Code leads
Gemma 3 27B: 16.7 (#301), Kimi K2.7 Code: 39.0 (#61)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | 10% |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 21% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 130.04 | 149.97 |
| SimpleBench | — | 57.9% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 40.4% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 43.8% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1340 | — |
| DTBench | 52.5% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 51.5% | — |
| LMCA | 12.3% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 48.8% |
| LiveBench | 50% | — |
Math Kimi K2.7 Code leads
Gemma 3 27B: 25.9 (#265), Kimi K2.7 Code: 52.9 (#48)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 22.5% | 95.6% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 54% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 12.2% |
| LiveBench Math | 55.4% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1312 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 74% | — |
Knowledge Kimi K2.7 Code leads
Gemma 3 27B: 25.5 (#261), Kimi K2.7 Code: 53.5 (#57)
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 47.7% | 87.9% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 36.5% |
| Confabulations | 40.3% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.4% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1304 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemma 3 27B: 32.6 (#100), Kimi K2.7 Code: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1164 | — |
| GeoBench | 52% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemma 3 27B: 46.9 (#155), Kimi K2.7 Code: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1334 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1346 | — |
| LMArena French | 1368 | — |
| LMArena German | 1362 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1287 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1308 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1349 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1349 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemma 3 27B: 70.6 (#160), Kimi K2.7 Code: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 74.9% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1321 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemma 3 27B: 27.6 (#293), Kimi K2.7 Code: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 33.3% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1333 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemma 3 27B: 52.5 (#168), Kimi K2.7 Code: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 3 27B | Kimi K2.7 Code |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1358 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1346 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 79.9% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1266 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1345 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 34.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 3 27B better than Kimi K2.7 Code?
Kimi K2.7 Code is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.3 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 3 27B costs 17× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Kimi K2.7 Code's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 3 27B or Kimi K2.7 Code?
Gemma 3 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.08 per million input tokens and $0.16 per million output tokens; Kimi K2.7 Code lists at $0.95 and $4.
Is Gemma 3 27B or Kimi K2.7 Code better for coding?
Kimi K2.7 Code scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.9 versus 22.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Kimi K2.7 Code does, with 262K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 3 27B and Kimi K2.7 Code share?
6 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 3 27B has 43 scored results on Noometry and Kimi K2.7 Code has 19.