# Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemma 2 27B

> Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 15× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-8-vs-gemma-2-27b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 22

## Summary

- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.8 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 4.8 leads 78.2 to 10.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 98.3% for Claude Opus 4.8 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 4.8.
- Claude Opus 4.8 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 8K.
- Gemma 2 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Google |
| Noometry Index | 60.7 | 29.2 |
| Rank | 9 | 302 |
| Context | 1M | 8K |
| Input $/M | $5 | $0.65 |
| Output $/M | $25 | $0.65 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4.8: 60.2 (#9)
- Gemma 2 27B: 33.5 (#243)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1491 | 1211 |
| DeepSWE | 59% | — |
| FrontierCode | 46.5% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1556 | — |
| SciCode | 53.5% | — |
| GSO | 47.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 82.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 42.8% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 36% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.5% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,564 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#10)
- Gemma 2 27B: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 48.9% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 20.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 8.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 39.7% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 50.2% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 33.8% | — |
| GBAEval | 70.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1204 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,787 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 4.8: 64.6 (#14)
- Gemma 2 27B: 14.8 (#313)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1481 | 1199 |
| DTBench | 94.9% | 48% |
| LMCA | 57.5% | 7.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 158.3 | 122.06 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 72.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 64.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 88.8% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 91.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 92.5% | — |
| CritPt | 20.9% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 34% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 23.5% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 28.6% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 28.1% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 36% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 47.9% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 87.5% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.14 | — |
| ForecastBench | 59.9 | — |
| LiveBench | — | 38.2% |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4.8: 78.2 (#11)
- Gemma 2 27B: 10.0 (#306)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.3% | 1.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1487 | 1212 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 80% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 56.1% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 91.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 69% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 26.5% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 27.9% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 47.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 31.3% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4.8: 61.3 (#26)
- Gemma 2 27B: 18.9 (#275)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 91% | 36.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1501 | 1172 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 53% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 27.1% |
| MMLU | — | 75.7% |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4.8: 43.2 (#20)
- Gemma 2 27B: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1295 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 14.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 42.5% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1475 | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4.8: 55.4 (#31)
- Gemma 2 27B: 38.8 (#221)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1450 | 1217 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1509 | 1221 |
| LMArena French | 1482 | 1246 |
| LMArena German | 1470 | 1209 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1440 | 1175 |
| LMArena Korean | 1432 | 1174 |
| LMArena Russian | 1476 | 1234 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1470 | 1228 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4.8: 77.6 (#22)
- Gemma 2 27B: 60.7 (#244)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1476 | 1206 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.1% |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#37)
- Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#213)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | 1231 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4.8: 72.1 (#17)
- Gemma 2 27B: 44.4 (#220)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1460 | 1231 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1453 | 1241 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1476 | 1224 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1840 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1281 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 32.6% |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Gemma 2 27B?

Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 15× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.8 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 4.8 lists at $5 and $25.

### Is Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemma 2 27B better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 60.2 versus 33.5 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.8 does, with 1M tokens against 8K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.8 and Gemma 2 27B share?

22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and Gemma 2 27B has 34.