# Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemma 2 27B

> Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 12× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-5-5-vs-gemma-2-27b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 15

## Summary

- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 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 5.5 leads 92.4 to 10.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 100% for Claude Opus 5.5 and 1.4% for Gemma 2 27B.
- Gemma 2 27B is cheaper at $0.65 / $0.65 per million input/output tokens, against $4 / $20 for Claude Opus 5.5.
- Claude Opus 5.5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 8K.
- Gemma 2 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Google |
| Noometry Index | 68.5 | 29.2 |
| Rank | 3 | 302 |
| Context | 1M | 8K |
| Input $/M | $4 | $0.65 |
| Output $/M | $20 | $0.65 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 5.5: 71.4 (#1)
- Gemma 2 27B: 33.5 (#243)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1545 | 1211 |
| FrontierCode | 54.4% | — |
| CursorBench | 57.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1820 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 62.3% | — |
| SciCode | 66.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 42.8% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 36% |
| MirrorCode | 77.4% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.5% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#13)
- Gemma 2 27B: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 73.5% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 30.6% | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 5.5: 79.5 (#2)
- Gemma 2 27B: 14.8 (#313)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1545 | 1199 |
| DTBench | 98.9% | 48% |
| LMCA | 68.2% | 7.1% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 92.5% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 88.5% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 31.7% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 71.4% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 28.1% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 71% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 47.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 122.06 |
| LiveBench | — | 38.2% |

## Math

- Claude Opus 5.5: 92.4 (#2)
- Gemma 2 27B: 10.0 (#306)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 1.4% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 91.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 95% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 26.5% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1212 |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 27.9% |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 5.5: 66.6 (#9)
- Gemma 2 27B: 18.9 (#275)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.6% | 36.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1564 | 1172 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 72.2% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 27.1% |
| MMLU | — | 75.7% |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 5.5: 56.5 (#2)
- Gemma 2 27B: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Furniture Assembly | 83.3% | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 5.5: 59.8 (#1)
- Gemma 2 27B: 38.8 (#221)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1513 | 1217 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1572 | 1221 |
| LMArena Russian | 1532 | 1234 |
| LMArena French | — | 1246 |
| LMArena German | — | 1209 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1175 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1174 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1228 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 5.5: 80.1 (#2)
- Gemma 2 27B: 60.7 (#244)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1535 | 1206 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.1% |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 5.5: 47.3 (#18)
- Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#213)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1540 | 1231 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 5.5: 78.7 (#3)
- Gemma 2 27B: 44.4 (#220)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1518 | 1231 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1538 | 1241 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1520 | 1224 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2050 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 32.6% |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Gemma 2 27B?

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.5 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 12× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5.5 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 5.5 lists at $4 and $20.

### Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Gemma 2 27B better for coding?

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.4 versus 33.5 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 5.5 does, with 1M tokens against 8K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and Gemma 2 27B share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 35 scored results on Noometry and Gemma 2 27B has 34.