WizardLM 2 8x22B vs Gemma 2 27B
WizardLM 2 8x22B comes out ahead, 38 to 32 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
MicrosoftWizardLM 2 8x22B
38/100- ECI—
- Price$0.493 / $0.493
- Context66K
GoogleGemma 2 27B
32/100- ECI122.1
- Price$0.65 / $0.65
- Context8K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
WizardLM 2 8x22B is our pick
WizardLM 2 8x22B is the better all-round choice, scoring 38/100 against Gemma 2 27B (32). It leads on capability, price and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%. Capability uses the average of shared benchmarks (GPQA Diamond), because WizardLM 2 8x22B has no Capabilities Index score yet.
- CapabilityWizardLM 2 8x22BShared benchmarks: WizardLM 2 8x22B 43.4% · Gemma 2 27B 36.5%
- Lowest priceWizardLM 2 8x22BWizardLM 2 8x22B $0.493 · Gemma 2 27B $0.65 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextWizardLM 2 8x22BWizardLM 2 8x22B 65,536 · Gemma 2 27B 8,192 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsWizardLM 2 8x22B: Text · Gemma 2 27B: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | WizardLM 2 8x22B | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityShared benchmarks | 50% | 43 | 36 |
| Price | 25% | 62 | 56 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 0 | 0 |
| Context window | 10% | 12 | 0 |
| Overall | 100% | 38/100 | 32/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | WizardLM 2 8x22BMicrosoft | Gemma 2 27BGoogle |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | 122.1 |
| ECI rank | — | #152 of 165 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 43.4% (best) | 36.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | — | 1.4% |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.493 (best) | $0.65 |
| Output | $0.493 (best) | $0.65 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.493 (best) | $0.65 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 3 providers | Median of 3 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 65,536 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens |
| Max output | 8,000 tokens (best) | 2,048 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Tool calling | No | No |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenApache-2.0 | Open |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 3 | 3 |
| Released | Apr 15, 2024 | Jul 13, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Jun 30, 2024 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- WizardLM 2 8x22B$5.92
- Gemma 2 27B$7.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: WizardLM 2 8x22B or Gemma 2 27B?
WizardLM 2 8x22B is the better all-round choice, scoring 38/100 against Gemma 2 27B (32). It leads on capability, price and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%. Capability uses the average of shared benchmarks (GPQA Diamond), because WizardLM 2 8x22B has no Capabilities Index score yet.
Which is cheaper, WizardLM 2 8x22B or Gemma 2 27B?
WizardLM 2 8x22B is cheaper at $0.493 input / $0.493 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). 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 $0.493 per million tokens for WizardLM 2 8x22B versus $0.65 for Gemma 2 27B (1.3× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Not every model here has a Capabilities Index score, so we compare the average of shared benchmarks (GPQA Diamond): WizardLM 2 8x22B 43.4% and Gemma 2 27B 36.5%. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — WizardLM 2 8x22B 43.4%, Gemma 2 27B 36.5%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for WizardLM 2 8x22B and Gemma 2 27B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, WizardLM 2 8x22B leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Note that WizardLM 2 8x22B and Gemma 2 27B does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
WizardLM 2 8x22B has the largest context window at 65,536 tokens, against 8,192 for Gemma 2 27B. Maximum output per response: WizardLM 2 8x22B up to 8,000, Gemma 2 27B up to 2,048 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
WizardLM 2 8x22B accepts text; Gemma 2 27B accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights (Apache-2.0), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Gemma 2 27B is the newest, released Jul 13, 2024. WizardLM 2 8x22B came out Apr 15, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Gemma 2 27B Jun 30, 2024.
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 Llama-3.1-70B-InstructThree-way comparison
- WizardLM 2 8x22B vs Llama-3.1-70B-InstructMeta · ECI 125.9
- WizardLM 2 8x22B vs Mistral LargeMistral AI · ECI 122.0
- WizardLM 2 8x22B vs Claude Haiku 3Anthropic · ECI 118.8
- 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
