ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Gemma 2 27B vs GPT-4o mini vs Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct

GPT-4o mini comes out ahead, 55 to 43 and 35 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Google

    Gemma 2 27B

    Released Jul 13, 2024

    35/100
    • ECI122.1
    • Price$0.65 / $0.65
    • Context8K
    Full specs Remove Gemma 2 27B
  2. Our pick

    OpenAI

    GPT-4o mini

    Released Jul 18, 2024

    55/100
    • ECI126.5
    • Price$0.15 / $0.60
    • Context128K
    Full specs Remove GPT-4o mini

  3. Meta

    Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct

    Released Jul 23, 2024

    43/100
    • ECI125.9
    • Price$0.72 / $0.72
    • Context128K
    Full specs Remove Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct
01 — Verdict

GPT-4o mini is our pick

GPT-4o mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 55/100 against Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct (43) and Gemma 2 27B (35). It leads on price and inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityGPT-4o miniCapabilities Index (ECI): GPT-4o mini 126.5 · Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct 125.9 · Gemma 2 27B 122.1
  • Lowest priceGPT-4o miniGPT-4o mini $0.263 · Gemma 2 27B $0.65 · Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct $0.72 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextGPT-4o mini and Llama-3.1-70B-InstructGPT-4o mini 128,000 · Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct 128,000 · Gemma 2 27B 8,192 tokens
  • Widest inputsGPT-4o miniGemma 2 27B: Text · GPT-4o mini: Text, Images, PDFs · Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct: Text
  • Self-hostingGemma 2 27B and Llama-3.1-70B-InstructPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGemma 2 27BGPT-4o miniLlama-3.1-70B-Instruct
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%424747
Price25%567454
Inputs & features15%07025
Context window10%02424
Overall100%35/10055/10043/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Gemma 2 27B vs GPT-4o mini vs Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct specifications side by side
SpecificationGemma 2 27BGoogleGPT-4o miniOpenAILlama-3.1-70B-InstructMeta
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)122.1126.5 (best)125.9
ECI rank#152 of 165#148 of 165 (best)#149 of 165
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions36.5%37.7%44.2% (best)
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics—0.7%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics1.4%6.9% (best)3.6%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions—8.3%—
Price per million tokens
Input$0.65$0.15 (best)$0.72
Output$0.65$0.60 (best)$0.72
Cached input—$0.075—
Blended (3:1)$0.65$0.263 (best)$0.72
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 3 providersOfficial OpenAI APIMedian of 8 providers
Limits
Context window8,192 tokens128,000 tokens (best)128,000 tokens (best)
Max output2,048 tokens16,384 tokens (best)4,096 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesNoYesNo
PDFsNoYesNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoNoNoNo
ReasoningNoNoNo
Tool callingNoYesYes
Structured outputNoYesNo
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietaryOpen
API model ID—gpt-4o-mini—
API providers326 (best)8
ReleasedJul 13, 2024Jul 18, 2024Jul 23, 2024
Knowledge cutoffJun 30, 2024Sep 2023Dec 2023
03 — Cost

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
  • GPT-4o mini$2.70
  • Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct$8.64
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Gemma 2 27B, GPT-4o mini or Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct?

GPT-4o mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 55/100 against Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct (43) and Gemma 2 27B (35). It leads on price and inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B, GPT-4o mini or Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct?

GPT-4o mini is cheaper at $0.15 input / $0.60 output per million tokens (official OpenAI API price). Gemma 2 27B costs $0.65 input / $0.65 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers); Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct costs $0.72 input / $0.72 output per million tokens (median across 8 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.263 per million tokens for GPT-4o mini versus $0.65 for Gemma 2 27B (2.5× as much) and $0.72 for Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct (2.7× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

GPT-4o mini scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): GPT-4o mini 126.5 (#148 of 165), Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct 125.9 (#149 of 165) and Gemma 2 27B 122.1 (#152 of 165). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (120.5–128.6 vs 120.8–128.2), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct 44.2%, GPT-4o mini 37.7%, Gemma 2 27B 36.5%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — GPT-4o mini 6.9%, Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct 3.6%, Gemma 2 27B 1.4%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Gemma 2 27B, GPT-4o mini and Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, GPT-4o mini leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Note that Gemma 2 27B does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.

Which has the bigger context window?

GPT-4o mini and Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct have the largest context windows (128,000 and 128,000 tokens), against 8,192 for Gemma 2 27B. Maximum output per response: Gemma 2 27B up to 2,048, GPT-4o mini up to 16,384, Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct up to 4,096 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Gemma 2 27B accepts text; GPT-4o mini accepts text, images and PDFs; Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct accepts text. GPT-4o mini handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Gemma 2 27B and Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; GPT-4o mini is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct is the newest, released Jul 23, 2024. GPT-4o mini came out Jul 18, 2024; Gemma 2 27B came out Jul 13, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Gemma 2 27B Jun 30, 2024, GPT-4o mini Sep 2023, Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct Dec 2023.

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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons