# Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemma 2 27B

> Gemini 2.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.3 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemini-2-5-flash-vs-gemma-2-27b
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 22

## Summary

- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash 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 Gemini 2.5 Flash leads 39.9 to 10.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 73.1% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 1.4% for Gemma 2 27B.
- Gemma 2 27B is cheaper at $0.65 / $0.65 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $2.50 for Gemini 2.5 Flash.
- Gemini 2.5 Flash accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 8K.
- Gemma 2 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Google |
| Noometry Index | 39.3 | 29.4 |
| Rank | 170 | 312 |
| Context | 1.05M | 8K |
| Input $/M | $0.30 | $0.65 |
| Output $/M | $2.50 | $0.65 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 35.8 (#220)
- Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1424 | 1211 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 28.7% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 55.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 41.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 42.8% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 36% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 52.5% |
| ALE-Bench | 661.88 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 30.8 (#74)
- Gemma 2 27B: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 17.1% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 56.2% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 41.1% | — |
| BALROG | 33.5% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 548.84 | — |

## Reasoning

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 18.1 (#286)
- Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | 1198 |
| DTBench | 76.5% | 48% |
| LMCA | 27.5% | 7.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.03 | 122.08 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 2.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 41.2% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 56.8% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 33.3% | — |
| CritPt | 1.1% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 2.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 28.1% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 47.9% |
| ForecastBench | 60.6 | — |
| LiveBench | — | 38.2% |

## Math

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 39.9 (#98)
- Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.1% | 1.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1415 | 1212 |
| Omni-MATH | 38.5% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 26.5% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 27.9% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 36.4 (#168)
- Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Confabulations | 16.8% | 27.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1426 | 1172 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 36.5% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 12.1% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 63.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.8% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 39% | — |
| MMLU | — | 75.7% |

## Multimodal

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 41.8 (#32)
- Gemma 2 27B: —

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1253 | — |
| GeoBench | 76% | — |
| VPCT | 46.2% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 36.9% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 52.3 (#88)
- Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1409 | 1217 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1450 | 1221 |
| LMArena French | 1433 | 1247 |
| LMArena German | 1418 | 1209 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1405 | 1175 |
| LMArena Korean | 1385 | 1174 |
| LMArena Russian | 1415 | 1234 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1421 | 1228 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 75.7 (#54)
- Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | 1206 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.1% |
| IFEval | 89.8% | — |

## Long Context

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 47.5 (#17)
- Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | 1231 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 77.8% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 53.8 (#157)
- Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1417 | 1231 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | 1241 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1408 | 1224 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 76.5% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1137 | — |
| WildBench | 81.7% | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 32.6% |

## FAQ

### Is Gemini 2.5 Flash better than Gemma 2 27B?

Gemini 2.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.3 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash 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; Gemini 2.5 Flash lists at $0.30 and $2.50.

### Is Gemini 2.5 Flash or Gemma 2 27B better for coding?

Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.8 versus 34.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 8K.

### How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash and Gemma 2 27B share?

22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and Gemma 2 27B has 34.