# Gemma 2 27B vs Llama 3.1-70B

> Gemma 2 27B and Llama 3.1-70B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (29.2 vs 29.4), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gemma-2-27b-vs-llama-3-1-70b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 26

## Summary

- They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemma 2 27B scores higher in 2 categories and Llama 3.1-70B in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Gemma 2 27B leads 44.4 to 35.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 48% for Gemma 2 27B and 60% for Llama 3.1-70B.
- Llama 3.1-70B is cheaper at $0.40 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.65 / $0.65 for Gemma 2 27B.
- Llama 3.1-70B accepts more context: 128K tokens versus 8K.

## Snapshot

| | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 29.2 | 29.4 |
| Rank | 302 | 299 |
| Context | 8K | 128K |
| Input $/M | $0.65 | $0.40 |
| Output $/M | $0.65 | $0.40 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Gemma 2 27B: 33.5 (#243)
- Llama 3.1-70B: 29.8 (#292)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | 46.1% |
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | 1260 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | 54.8% |
| WeirdML | — | 9% |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Gemma 2 27B: —
- Llama 3.1-70B: 24.9 (#104)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | — | 6.9% |
| BALROG | — | 27.9% |

## Reasoning

- Gemma 2 27B: 14.8 (#313)
- Llama 3.1-70B: 20.8 (#215)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1199 | 1241 |
| DTBench | 48% | 60% |
| LMCA | 7.1% | 14.8% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.06 | 125.91 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | — |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | — |

## Math

- Gemma 2 27B: 10.0 (#306)
- Llama 3.1-70B: 12.7 (#298)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.4% | 3.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1212 | 1252 |
| MATH Level 5 | 27.9% | 36.7% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 21% |
| LiveBench Math | 26.5% | — |

## Knowledge

- Gemma 2 27B: 18.9 (#275)
- Llama 3.1-70B: 24.1 (#264)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | 44.2% |
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | 1209 |
| MMLU | 75.7% | 80.1% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 65.3% |
| Confabulations | 27.1% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 42.6% |

## Multilingual

- Gemma 2 27B: 38.8 (#221)
- Llama 3.1-70B: 38.9 (#220)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | 1219 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | 1215 |
| LMArena French | 1246 | 1260 |
| LMArena German | 1209 | 1222 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | 1132 |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | 1140 |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | 1234 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | 1253 |

## Instruction Following

- Gemma 2 27B: 60.7 (#244)
- Llama 3.1-70B: 65.5 (#218)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | 1231 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | — |
| IFEval | — | 82.1% |

## Long Context

- Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#213)
- Llama 3.1-70B: 37.6 (#208)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | 1241 |

## Writing & Preference

- Gemma 2 27B: 44.4 (#220)
- Llama 3.1-70B: 35.6 (#262)

| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Llama 3.1-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1261 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1241 | 1232 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1224 | 1256 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 784 |
| WildBench | — | 75.8% |
| LiveBench Language | 32.6% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Gemma 2 27B better than Llama 3.1-70B?

Gemma 2 27B and Llama 3.1-70B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (29.2 vs 29.4), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

### Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Llama 3.1-70B?

Llama 3.1-70B is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Gemma 2 27B lists at $0.65 and $0.65.

### Is Gemma 2 27B or Llama 3.1-70B better for coding?

Gemma 2 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.5 versus 29.8 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Llama 3.1-70B does, with 128K tokens against 8K.

### How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Llama 3.1-70B share?

26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.1-70B has 35.