# Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Gemma 3 27B

> Gemini 2.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.3 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 3 27B costs 8.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemini-2-5-flash-vs-gemma-3-27b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 32

## Summary

- They share 32 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher in 10 categories and Gemma 3 27B in 0 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where Gemini 2.5 Flash leads 47.5 to 27.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 73.1% for Gemini 2.5 Flash and 22.5% for Gemma 3 27B.
- Gemma 3 27B is cheaper at $0.08 / $0.16 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 131K.
- Gemma 3 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 3 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Google |
| Noometry Index | 39.3 | 30.8 |
| Rank | 170 | 284 |
| Context | 1.05M | 131K |
| Input $/M | $0.30 | $0.08 |
| Output $/M | $2.50 | $0.16 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 35.8 (#220)
- Gemma 3 27B: 22.5 (#334)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 3 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 55.1% | 4.9% |
| LMArena Coding | 1424 | 1322 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 28.7% | — |
| SciCode | — | 21.2% |
| WeirdML | 41.9% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 39.9% |
| ALE-Bench | 661.88 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 30.8 (#74)
- Gemma 3 27B: 25.1 (#110)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 3 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 56.2% | 29.5% |
| Terminal-Bench | 17.1% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | 41.1% | — |
| BALROG | 33.5% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 548.84 | — |

## Reasoning

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 18.1 (#286)
- Gemma 3 27B: 16.7 (#301)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 3 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 56.8% | 40.4% |
| CritPt | 1.1% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1422 | 1340 |
| DTBench | 76.5% | 52.5% |
| LMCA | 27.5% | 12.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.03 | 130.04 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 2.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 41.2% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 33.3% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| EnigmaEval | 2.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 43.8% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 51.5% |
| ForecastBench | 60.6 | — |
| LiveBench | — | 50% |

## Math

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 39.9 (#98)
- Gemma 3 27B: 25.9 (#265)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 3 27B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.1% | 22.5% |
| LMArena Math | 1415 | 1312 |
| Omni-MATH | 38.5% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 55.4% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 74% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 36.4 (#168)
- Gemma 3 27B: 25.5 (#261)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 3 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Confabulations | 16.8% | 40.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.8% | 7.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1426 | 1304 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 47.7% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 12.1% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 63.9% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 39% | — |

## Multimodal

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 41.8 (#32)
- Gemma 3 27B: 32.6 (#100)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 3 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1253 | 1164 |
| GeoBench | 76% | 52% |
| VPCT | 46.2% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 36.9% | — |

## Multilingual

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 52.3 (#88)
- Gemma 3 27B: 46.9 (#155)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 3 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1409 | 1334 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1450 | 1346 |
| LMArena French | 1433 | 1368 |
| LMArena German | 1418 | 1362 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1405 | 1287 |
| LMArena Korean | 1385 | 1308 |
| LMArena Russian | 1415 | 1349 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1421 | 1349 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 75.7 (#54)
- Gemma 3 27B: 70.6 (#160)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 3 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1405 | 1321 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 74.9% |
| IFEval | 89.8% | — |

## Long Context

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 47.5 (#17)
- Gemma 3 27B: 27.6 (#293)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 3 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 77.8% | 33.3% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1419 | 1333 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemini 2.5 Flash: 53.8 (#157)
- Gemma 3 27B: 52.5 (#168)

| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Gemma 3 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1417 | 1358 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1400 | 1346 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 76.5% | 79.9% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1137 | 1266 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1408 | 1345 |
| WildBench | 81.7% | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 34.6% |

## FAQ

### Is Gemini 2.5 Flash better than Gemma 3 27B?

Gemini 2.5 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.3 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index. Gemma 3 27B costs 8.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Gemini 2.5 Flash's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Gemma 3 27B?

Gemma 3 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.08 per million input tokens and $0.16 per million output tokens; Gemini 2.5 Flash lists at $0.30 and $2.50.

### Is Gemini 2.5 Flash or Gemma 3 27B better for coding?

Gemini 2.5 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.8 versus 22.5 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Gemini 2.5 Flash does, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.

### How many benchmarks do Gemini 2.5 Flash and Gemma 3 27B share?

32 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 2.5 Flash has 54 scored results on Noometry and Gemma 3 27B has 43.