Model Comparison

Gemma 2 27B vs Mistral NeMo Instruct

Gemma 2 27B significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

5 benchmarks

Gemma 2 27B outperforms in 5 benchmarks (HellaSwag, MMLU, Natural Questions, TriviaQA, Winogrande), while Mistral NeMo Instruct is better at 0 benchmarks.

Gemma 2 27B significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Mon Apr 13 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Cost data unavailable.

Lowest available price from all providers
Mon Apr 13 2026 • llm-stats.com
Google
Gemma 2 27B
Input tokens$0.00
Output tokens$0.00
Best providerUnknown Organization
Mistral AI
Mistral NeMo Instruct
Input tokens$0.15
Output tokens$0.15
Best providerGoogle
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

15.2B diff

Gemma 2 27B has 15.2B more parameters than Mistral NeMo Instruct, making it 126.7% larger.

Google
Gemma 2 27B
27.2Bparameters
Mistral AI
Mistral NeMo Instruct
12.0Bparameters
27.2B
Gemma 2 27B
12.0B
Mistral NeMo Instruct

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Mistral NeMo Instruct specifies input context (128,000 tokens). Only Mistral NeMo Instruct specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

Google
Gemma 2 27B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Mistral AI
Mistral NeMo Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Mon Apr 13 2026 • llm-stats.com

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemma 2 27B is licensed under Gemma, while Mistral NeMo Instruct uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Gemma 2 27B

Gemma

Open weights

Mistral NeMo Instruct

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemma 2 27B was released on 2024-06-27, while Mistral NeMo Instruct was released on 2024-07-18.

Mistral NeMo Instruct is 1 month newer than Gemma 2 27B.

Gemma 2 27B

Jun 27, 2024

1.8 years ago

Mistral NeMo Instruct

Jul 18, 2024

1.7 years ago

3w newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Google
Higher HellaSwag score (86.4% vs 83.5%)
Higher MMLU score (75.2% vs 68.0%)
Higher Natural Questions score (34.5% vs 31.2%)
Higher TriviaQA score (83.7% vs 73.8%)
Higher Winogrande score (83.7% vs 76.8%)
Mistral AI
Larger context window (128,000 tokens)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Google
Gemma 2 27B
Mistral AI
Mistral NeMo Instruct

FAQ

Common questions about Gemma 2 27B vs Mistral NeMo Instruct

Gemma 2 27B significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Gemma 2 27B is made by Google and Mistral NeMo Instruct is made by Mistral AI. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.
Gemma 2 27B scores ARC-E: 88.6%, HellaSwag: 86.4%, BoolQ: 84.8%, TriviaQA: 83.7%, Winogrande: 83.7%. Mistral NeMo Instruct scores HellaSwag: 83.5%, Winogrande: 76.8%, TriviaQA: 73.8%, CommonSenseQA: 70.4%, MMLU: 68.0%.
Gemma 2 27B supports an unknown number of tokens and Mistral NeMo Instruct supports 128K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.
Key differences include licensing (Gemma vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Gemma 2 27B is developed by Google and Mistral NeMo Instruct is developed by Mistral AI.