Gemma 2 27B vs Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite comes out ahead, 83 to 28 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
GoogleGemma 2 27B
28/100- ECI122.1
- Price$0.65 / $0.65
- Context8K
- Our pickGoogle
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
83/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.40
- Context1.05M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is our pick
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 83/100 against Gemma 2 27B (28). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite $0.175 · Gemma 2 27B $0.65 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 1,048,576 · Gemma 2 27B 8,192 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGemma 2 27B: Text · Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingGemma 2 27BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Gemma 2 27B | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 56 | 82 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 0 | 100 |
| Context window | 20% | 0 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 28/100 | 83/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Gemma 2 27BGoogle | Gemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGoogle |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 122.1 | — |
| ECI rank | #152 of 165 | — |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 36.5% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 1.4% | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.65 | $0.10 (best) |
| Output | $0.65 | $0.40 (best) |
| Cached input | — | $0.01 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.65 | $0.175 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 3 providers | Official Google API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 8,192 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 2,048 tokens | 65,536 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | Yes |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | No | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | gemini-2.5-flash-lite |
| API providers | 3 | 24 (best) |
| Released | Jul 13, 2024 | Jun 17, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jun 30, 2024 | Jan 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Gemma 2 27B$7.80
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite$1.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Gemma 2 27B or Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 83/100 against Gemma 2 27B (28). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Google API price). Gemma 2 27B costs $0.65 input / $0.65 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.175 per million tokens for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite versus $0.65 for Gemma 2 27B (3.7× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Gemma 2 27B has an ECI of 122.1 and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemma 2 27B and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Gemma 2 27B does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 8,192 for Gemma 2 27B. Maximum output per response: Gemma 2 27B up to 2,048, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Gemma 2 27B accepts text; Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Gemma 2 27B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the newest, released Jun 17, 2025. Gemma 2 27B came out Jul 13, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Gemma 2 27B Jun 30, 2024, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Jan 2025.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Mistral LargeThree-way comparison
- Gemma 2 27B vs Mistral LargeMistral AI · ECI 122.0
- Gemma 2 27B vs Llama-3.1-70B-InstructMeta · ECI 125.9
- Gemma 2 27B vs Claude Haiku 3Anthropic · ECI 118.8
- Gemma 2 27B vs GPT-4o miniOpenAI · ECI 126.5
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Voxtral Small 24B 2507Mistral AI
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite vs Qwen FlashAlibaba (Qwen)
