# Claude Opus 4.1 vs Gemma 2 27B

> Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.0 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 46× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-1-vs-gemma-2-27b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 23

## Summary

- They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 8 categories and Gemma 2 27B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Claude Opus 4.1 leads 42.0 to 19.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 68.9% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 1.4% for Gemma 2 27B.
- Gemma 2 27B is cheaper at $0.65 / $0.65 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- Claude Opus 4.1 accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 8K.
- Gemma 2 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Google |
| Noometry Index | 41.0 | 29.4 |
| Rank | 142 | 312 |
| Context | 200K | 8K |
| Input $/M | $15 | $0.65 |
| Output $/M | $75 | $0.65 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4.1: 44.4 (#73)
- Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1211 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | — |
| WeirdML | 45.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 42.8% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 36% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.5% |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4.1: 35.0 (#41)
- Gemma 2 27B: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | — |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 4.1: 32.2 (#76)
- Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1198 |
| DTBench | 80% | 48% |
| LMCA | 37.1% | 7.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.12 | 122.08 |
| SimpleBench | 60% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 28.1% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 47.9% |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |
| LiveBench | — | 38.2% |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4.1: 22.3 (#277)
- Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | 1.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1431 | 1212 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 26.5% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 27.9% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4.1: 42.0 (#101)
- Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | 36.5% |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | 27.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1172 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | — |
| MMLU | — | 75.7% |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4.1: 26.8 (#119)
- Gemma 2 27B: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| VPCT | 35% | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4.1: 52.0 (#95)
- Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1217 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1221 |
| LMArena French | 1431 | 1247 |
| LMArena German | 1413 | 1209 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | 1175 |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | 1174 |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | 1234 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1228 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4.1: 75.6 (#58)
- Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1435 | 1206 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.1% |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#63)
- Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1231 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4.1: 62.4 (#74)
- Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1231 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1241 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1224 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 32.6% |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than Gemma 2 27B?

Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.0 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 46× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 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 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.

### Is Claude Opus 4.1 or Gemma 2 27B better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.4 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.1 does, with 200K tokens against 8K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and Gemma 2 27B share?

23 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and Gemma 2 27B has 34.