ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

GPT-4o mini vs Gemma 2 27B 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. 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

  2. Google

    Gemma 2 27B

    Released Jul 13, 2024

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

  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 miniGPT-4o mini: Text, Images, PDFs · Gemma 2 27B: Text · Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct: Text
  • Self-hostingGemma 2 27B and Llama-3.1-70B-InstructPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGPT-4o miniGemma 2 27BLlama-3.1-70B-Instruct
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%474247
Price25%745654
Inputs & features15%70025
Context window10%24024
Overall100%55/10035/10043/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

GPT-4o mini vs Gemma 2 27B vs Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct specifications side by side
SpecificationGPT-4o miniOpenAIGemma 2 27BGoogleLlama-3.1-70B-InstructMeta
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)126.5 (best)122.1125.9
ECI rank#148 of 165 (best)#152 of 165#149 of 165
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions37.7%36.5%44.2% (best)
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics0.7%——
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics6.9% (best)1.4%3.6%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions8.3%——
Price per million tokens
Input$0.15 (best)$0.65$0.72
Output$0.60 (best)$0.65$0.72
Cached input$0.075——
Blended (3:1)$0.263 (best)$0.65$0.72
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial OpenAI APIMedian of 3 providersMedian of 8 providers
Limits
Context window128,000 tokens (best)8,192 tokens128,000 tokens (best)
Max output16,384 tokens (best)2,048 tokens4,096 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesYesNoNo
PDFsYesNoNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoNoNoNo
ReasoningNoNoNo
Tool callingYesNoYes
Structured outputYesNoNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpenOpen
API model IDgpt-4o-mini——
API providers26 (best)38
ReleasedJul 18, 2024Jul 13, 2024Jul 23, 2024
Knowledge cutoffSep 2023Jun 30, 2024Dec 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.

  • GPT-4o mini$2.70
  • Gemma 2 27B$7.80
  • Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct$8.64
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: GPT-4o mini, Gemma 2 27B 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, GPT-4o mini, Gemma 2 27B 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 GPT-4o mini, Gemma 2 27B 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: GPT-4o mini up to 16,384, Gemma 2 27B up to 2,048, Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct up to 4,096 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

GPT-4o mini accepts text, images and PDFs; Gemma 2 27B accepts text; 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: GPT-4o mini Sep 2023, Gemma 2 27B Jun 30, 2024, 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