# Claude Opus 5 vs Gemma 2 27B

> Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.7 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 15× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-5-vs-gemma-2-27b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 22

## Summary

- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 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 leads 86.1 to 10.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 98.9% for Claude Opus 5 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 5.
- Claude Opus 5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 8K.
- Gemma 2 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Google |
| Noometry Index | 67.7 | 29.2 |
| Rank | 4 | 302 |
| Context | 1M | 8K |
| Input $/M | $5 | $0.65 |
| Output $/M | $25 | $0.65 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 5: 67.0 (#5)
- Gemma 2 27B: 33.5 (#243)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1533 | 1211 |
| DeepSWE | 73.6% | — |
| FrontierCode | 53.4% | — |
| CursorBench | 46.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1694 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 52% | — |
| SciCode | 56.4% | — |
| WeirdML | 91.8% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 42.8% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 36% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.5% |
| ALE-Bench | 2,165 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 5: 55.5 (#1)
- Gemma 2 27B: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 65.8% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 31.4% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 48.7% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 35% | — |
| BALROG | 63.4% | — |
| GBAEval | 79.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 11,182 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 5: 77.1 (#3)
- Gemma 2 27B: 14.8 (#313)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1525 | 1199 |
| DTBench | 97.9% | 48% |
| LMCA | 64.5% | 7.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.67 | 122.06 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.4% | — |
| SimpleBench | 80.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 94.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 29.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 42% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 45.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 28.1% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 59% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 47.9% |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.12 | — |
| LiveBench | — | 38.2% |

## Math

- Claude Opus 5: 86.1 (#6)
- Gemma 2 27B: 10.0 (#306)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.9% | 1.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1533 | 1212 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 85.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 73.2% | — |
| ProofBench | 99% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 26.5% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 27.9% |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 5: 66.8 (#8)
- Gemma 2 27B: 18.9 (#275)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.9% | 36.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1558 | 1172 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 59.9% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 27.1% |
| MMLU | — | 75.7% |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 5: 51.1 (#6)
- Gemma 2 27B: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1321 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 30.4% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 60.8% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1516 | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 5: 58.8 (#3)
- Gemma 2 27B: 38.8 (#221)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1500 | 1217 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1575 | 1221 |
| LMArena French | 1522 | 1246 |
| LMArena German | 1522 | 1209 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1510 | 1175 |
| LMArena Korean | 1526 | 1174 |
| LMArena Russian | 1507 | 1234 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1519 | 1228 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 5: 79.3 (#5)
- Gemma 2 27B: 60.7 (#244)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1516 | 1206 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.1% |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 5: 46.5 (#20)
- Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#213)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1516 | 1231 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 5: 79.3 (#2)
- Gemma 2 27B: 44.4 (#220)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1506 | 1231 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1491 | 1241 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1496 | 1224 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2133 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1385 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 32.6% |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 5 better than Gemma 2 27B?

Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.7 to 29.2 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 2 27B costs 15× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

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

### Is Claude Opus 5 or Gemma 2 27B better for coding?

Claude Opus 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.0 versus 33.5 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 5 does, with 1M tokens against 8K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5 and Gemma 2 27B share?

22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5 has 57 scored results on Noometry and Gemma 2 27B has 34.