Gemma 3 27B vs Mistral NeMo Instruct
Gemma 3 27B leads the LLM Stats Score 8.4 to -5.0. Gemma 3 27B is 1.2x cheaper per token.
Google · Mistral AI · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Gemma 3 27B leads the overall LLM Stats Score 8.4 to -5.0, ranking #269 overall.
On price, Gemma 3 27B is roughly 1.2x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Gemma 3 27B also accepts a larger context window (131,072 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 Gemma 3 27B
- overall performance matters — it scores 8.4 and ranks #269 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
- cost matters — it's about 1.2x cheaper per token
- you process long inputs — it offers a 131,072 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Mar 2025
Choose Mistral NeMo Instruct
- you want predictable pricing at $0.15/M input and $0.15/M output
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Individual benchmarks
27 reported for Gemma 3 27B · 8 for Mistral NeMo Instruct
Gemma 3 27B and Mistral NeMo Instructdon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Gemma 3 27B ($0.10/1M tokens) is 1.5x cheaper than Mistral NeMo Instruct ($0.15/1M tokens).
For output processing, Gemma 3 27B ($0.20/1M tokens) is 1.3x more expensive than Mistral NeMo Instruct ($0.15/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Mistral NeMo Instruct is more expensive than Gemma 3 27B.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
Gemma 3 27B has 15.0B more parameters than Mistral NeMo Instruct, making it 125.0% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Gemma 3 27B accepts 131,072 input tokens compared to Mistral NeMo Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Gemma 3 27B can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Mistral NeMo Instruct is limited to 128,000 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Gemma 3 27B supports multimodal inputs, whereas Mistral NeMo Instruct does not.
Gemma 3 27B can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
Gemma 3 27B
Mistral NeMo Instruct
License
Usage and distribution terms
Gemma 3 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
Open weights
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Gemma 3 27B was released on 2025-03-12, while Mistral NeMo Instruct was released on 2024-07-18.
Gemma 3 27B is 8 months newer than Mistral NeMo Instruct.
Mar 12, 2025
1.5 years ago
7mo newerJul 18, 2024
2.1 years ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
Gemma 3 27B is available from DeepInfra, Novita. Mistral NeMo Instruct is available from Google, Mistral AI.
Gemma 3 27B
Mistral NeMo Instruct
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Gemma 3 27B and Mistral NeMo Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Gemma 3 27B vs Mistral NeMo Instruct.