Model Comparison

Gemma 2 27B vs Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

11 benchmarks

Gemma 2 27B outperforms in 3 benchmarks (BoolQ, HellaSwag, Winogrande), while Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct is better at 8 benchmarks (ARC-C, GSM8k, HumanEval, MATH, MBPP, MMLU, PIQA, Social IQa).

Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.

Sat Apr 18 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
Sat Apr 18 2026 • llm-stats.com
Google
Gemma 2 27B
Input tokens$0.00
Output tokens$0.00
Best providerUnknown Organization
Microsoft
Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct
Input tokens$0.00
Output tokens$0.00
Best providerUnknown Organization
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

32.8B diff

Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct has 32.8B more parameters than Gemma 2 27B, making it 120.6% larger.

Google
Gemma 2 27B
27.2Bparameters
Microsoft
Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct
60.0Bparameters
27.2B
Gemma 2 27B
60.0B
Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemma 2 27B is licensed under Gemma, while Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct uses MIT.

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

Gemma 2 27B

Gemma

Open weights

Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemma 2 27B was released on 2024-06-27, while Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct was released on 2024-08-23.

Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct is 2 months newer than Gemma 2 27B.

Gemma 2 27B

Jun 27, 2024

1.8 years ago

Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

Aug 23, 2024

1.7 years ago

1mo 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 BoolQ score (84.8% vs 84.6%)
Higher HellaSwag score (86.4% vs 83.8%)
Higher Winogrande score (83.7% vs 81.3%)
Microsoft
Higher ARC-C score (91.0% vs 71.4%)
Higher GSM8k score (88.7% vs 74.0%)
Higher HumanEval score (70.7% vs 51.8%)
Higher MATH score (59.5% vs 42.3%)
Higher MBPP score (80.8% vs 62.6%)
Higher MMLU score (78.9% vs 75.2%)
Higher PIQA score (88.6% vs 83.2%)
Higher Social IQa score (78.0% vs 53.7%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Google
Gemma 2 27B
Microsoft
Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

FAQ

Common questions about Gemma 2 27B vs Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks. Gemma 2 27B is made by Google and Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct is made by Microsoft. 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%. Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct scores ARC-C: 91.0%, OpenBookQA: 89.6%, GSM8k: 88.7%, PIQA: 88.6%, RULER: 87.1%.
Key differences include licensing (Gemma vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Gemma 2 27B is developed by Google and Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct is developed by Microsoft.