Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Gemma 3 27B
Gemini 2.0 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 16.5 to 8.3. Gemma 3 27B is 1.8x cheaper per token.
Google · Google · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Gemini 2.0 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 16.5 to 8.3, ranking #220 overall.
In the 8 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Gemini 2.0 Flash wins 8; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Gemma 3 27B is roughly 1.8x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Gemini 2.0 Flash also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Gemini 2.0 Flash
- overall performance matters — it scores 16.5 and ranks #220 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 8 of 8 exact shared results
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
Choose Gemma 3 27B
- cost matters — it's about 1.8x cheaper per token
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Mar 2025
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
13 reported for Gemini 2.0 Flash · 27 for Gemma 3 27B
Gemini 2.0 Flash outperforms in 8 benchmarks (Bird-SQL (dev), FACTS Grounding, GPQA, HiddenMath, LiveCodeBench, MATH, MMLU-Pro, Natural2Code), while Gemma 3 27B is better at 0 benchmarks.
Gemini 2.0 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Gemini 2.0 Flash ($0.10/1M tokens) is 1.3x more expensive than Gemma 3 27B ($0.08/1M tokens).
For output processing, Gemini 2.0 Flash ($0.40/1M tokens) is 2.5x more expensive than Gemma 3 27B ($0.16/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Gemini 2.0 Flash is more expensive than Gemma 3 27B.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Gemini 2.0 Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Gemma 3 27B's 131,072 tokens. Gemma 3 27B can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Gemini 2.0 Flash is limited to 8,192 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Both Gemini 2.0 Flash and Gemma 3 27B support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
Gemini 2.0 Flash
Gemma 3 27B
License
Usage and distribution terms
Gemini 2.0 Flash is licensed under a proprietary license, while Gemma 3 27B uses Gemma.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Proprietary
Closed source
Gemma
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Gemini 2.0 Flash was released on 2024-12-01, while Gemma 3 27B was released on 2025-03-12.
Gemma 3 27B is 3 months newer than Gemini 2.0 Flash.
Dec 1, 2024
1.8 years ago
Mar 12, 2025
1.5 years ago
3mo newerKnowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Gemini 2.0 Flash has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2024-08-01, while Gemma 3 27B's cutoff date is not specified.
We can confirm Gemini 2.0 Flash's training data extends to 2024-08-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without Gemma 3 27B's cutoff date.
Aug 2024
—
Provider Availability
Gemini 2.0 Flash is available from Google. Gemma 3 27B is available from DeepInfra, Novita.
Gemini 2.0 Flash
Gemma 3 27B
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Gemini 2.0 Flash and Gemma 3 27B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Gemma 3 27B.