# Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemma 2 27B

> Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 15× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-7-vs-gemma-2-27b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 22

## Summary

- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 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 4.7 leads 66.7 to 10.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 97.8% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 1.4% for Gemma 2 27B.
- Gemma 2 27B is cheaper at $0.65 / $0.65 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.7.
- Claude Opus 4.7 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 8K.
- Gemma 2 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Google |
| Noometry Index | 58.3 | 29.4 |
| Rank | 19 | 312 |
| Context | 1M | 8K |
| Input $/M | $5 | $0.65 |
| Output $/M | $25 | $0.65 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4.7: 59.6 (#13)
- Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1518 | 1211 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 83.5% | — |
| FrontierCode | 38.5% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1558 | — |
| SciCode | 54.5% | — |
| GSO | 44.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 76.4% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 42.8% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 36% |
| MirrorCode | 31.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.5% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,323 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10)
- Gemma 2 27B: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 80.2% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 49.2% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 18.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 40.2% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 28.6% | — |
| ExploitBench | 26.5% | — |
| GBAEval | 43.8% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 21% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1233 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 10,937 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29)
- Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1506 | 1198 |
| DTBench | 94.7% | 48% |
| LMCA | 52.2% | 7.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.25 | 122.08 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 75.8% | — |
| SimpleBench | 61.7% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 80.7% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 39% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 93.5% | — |
| CritPt | 12% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 30% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 72.8% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 19% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 28.1% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 28% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 47.9% |
| ForecastBench | 60.3 | — |
| LiveBench | — | 38.2% |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26)
- Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 97.8% | 1.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1499 | 1212 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 70.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 31.7% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 73.6% | — |
| ProofBench | 54% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 26.5% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 27.9% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 43.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23)
- Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.2% | 36.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1521 | 1172 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 36.2% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 51.7% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 27.1% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | — |
| MMLU | — | 75.7% |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38)
- Gemma 2 27B: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 24.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 33.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1495 | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10)
- Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1480 | 1217 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1531 | 1221 |
| LMArena French | 1503 | 1247 |
| LMArena German | 1495 | 1209 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1472 | 1175 |
| LMArena Korean | 1464 | 1174 |
| LMArena Russian | 1494 | 1234 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1495 | 1228 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10)
- Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1498 | 1206 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.1% |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25)
- Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1505 | 1231 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8)
- Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1490 | 1231 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1486 | 1241 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1505 | 1224 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1914 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1311 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 32.6% |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Gemma 2 27B?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 15× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 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 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

### Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Gemma 2 27B better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.7 does, with 1M tokens against 8K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemma 2 27B share?

22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Gemma 2 27B has 34.