Gemma 2 27B vs GPT-6.1 Sol
Gemma 2 27B costs 15.4x less per output token than GPT-6.1 Sol ($0.65 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 29 benchmarks have a result for both.
Gemma 2 27B or GPT-6.1 Sol: which to pick
Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a coding score, 82.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemma 2 27B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Gemma 2 27B for output tokens 15.4x cheaper ($0.65 vs $10.00 per million).
- Shared results
- 29
- Gemma 2 27B only
- 7
- GPT-6.1 Sol only
- 69
- Like-for-like categories
- 6 of 9
Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a AA Intelligence Index result, 51.8.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a Design Arena: websites result, 1321.
Directional only
General
Vals Index
No call
Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a Vals Index result, 63.9%.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
GPT-6.1 Sol
GPT-6.1 Sol takes 1.05M tokens against 8K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Gemma 2 27B
Gemma 2 27B $0.0010, GPT-6.1 Sol $0.0070 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Gemma 2 27B not benchmarked, GPT-6.1 Sol 82.4 from 5 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Math, 64.5 points apart on average over 3 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- OTIS Mock AIME: Gemma 2 27B 1.4% against GPT-6.1 Sol 100.0%, 98.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Gemma 2 27B $0.65 against GPT-6.1 Sol $10.00 per million output tokens, 15.4x apart.
- Context window
- Gemma 2 27B takes 8K tokens, GPT-6.1 Sol 1.05M.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | Gemma 2 27B | Bars | GPT-6.1 Sol | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 2 | ||
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 4 | ||
| Math | 0 | 3 | ||
| Knowledge | 0 | 4 | ||
| General | 0 | 15 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 29 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | GPT-6.1 Sol | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench coding | Not measured | 96.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena WebDev | Not measured | 1753 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI) | Not measured | 55.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 88.9% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | Not measured | 65.1% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| ProgramBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 3.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| IOI (Vals AI) | Not measured | 96.9% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SWE-bench Multimodal (Vals AI) | Not measured | 43.5% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| CyberBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 39.3% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 55.8% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| FrontierCode | Not measured | 50.2% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 2743.8 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1211 | 1478 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1228 | 1476 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena WebDev: React | Not measured | 1754 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | Not measured | 1800 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena WebDev: from an image | Not measured | 1702 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 9.2% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | GPT-6.1 Sol | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | Not measured | 51.8 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.1 | 168.4 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index18 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | GPT-6.1 Sol | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: agents building web apps | Not measured | 1306 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: agents building mobile apps | Not measured | 1213 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: spreadsheets | Not measured | 1259 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveBench research | Not measured | 83.5% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveBench browser | Not measured | 88.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveBench long agentic | Not measured | 73.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SREBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 50.8% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | Not measured | 52.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 21.8% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 38.5% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI) | Not measured | 6.3% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | Not measured | 70.8% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| BioMysteryBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 79.6% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI) | Not measured | 52.9% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Vals Science Index | Not measured | 59.6% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Robo-bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 28.3% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| APEX-Agents | Not measured | 60.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SpireClimb | Not measured | 24.7% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | GPT-6.1 Sol | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench reasoning | Not measured | 92.6% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| MysteryMechanism (Vals AI) | Not measured | 46.4% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 52.9% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 36.5% | 95.4% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| ARC-AGI | Not measured | 98.5% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | Not measured | 94.2% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Chess puzzles | Not measured | 68.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | Not measured | 80.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| EBR-bench | Not measured | 54.3% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1198 | 1463 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1171 | 1489 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1206 | 1465 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Vision: diagrams | Not measured | 1306 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Vision: homework | Not measured | 1356 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | GPT-6.1 Sol | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | 1.4% | 100.0% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | Not measured | 93.7% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| FrontierMath, tier 4 | Not measured | 100.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| ProofBench | Not measured | 99.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| MATH level 5 | 27.9% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1212 | 1489 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1221 | 1513 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | GPT-6.1 Sol | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 68.0% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | Not measured | 48.8% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SimpleQA Verified | Not measured | 73.9% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| MMLU | 75.7% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1228 | 1444 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1198 | 1433 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1241 | 1471 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1208 | 1445 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| FACTS Benchmark Suite | Not measured | 75.3% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | GPT-6.1 Sol | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | Not measured | 1321 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | Not measured | 1317 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | Not measured | 1389 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: data viz | Not measured | 1281 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | Not measured | 1460 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | Not measured | 1345 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveBench design | Not measured | 82.1% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index015
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | GPT-6.1 Sol | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vals Index | Not measured | 63.9% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LiveBench data analysis | Not measured | 82.7% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 59.3% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| SAGE (Vals AI) | Not measured | 46.5% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | Not measured | 86.5% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | Not measured | 84.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| DTBench | 48.0% | 96.5% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMCA | 7.1% | 62.8% | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Furniture assembly | Not measured | 80.0% | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text | 1231 | 1443 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1206 | 1466 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1240 | 1425 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Vision | Not measured | 1288 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1242 | 1450 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1217 | 1433 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1221 | 1487 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: German | 1209 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1175 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1174 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: French | 1248 | 1460 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1228 | 1439 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1234 | 1457 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1277 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1224 | 1442 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1230 | 1458 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1249 | 1444 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1212 | 1426 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| LMArena Vision: English | Not measured | 1274 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Vision: reading text | Not measured | 1289 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| LMArena Vision: creative writing | Not measured | 1301 | Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | GPT-6.1 Sol | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
Gemma 2 27B costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Gemma 2 27B costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Gemma 2 27B costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | Google Gemma 2 27B | OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | July 13, 2024 | September 29, 2026 |
| Context window | 8K | 1.05M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.65 | $2.00 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.65 | $10.00 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | 82.4 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 5 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Gemma 2 27B better than GPT-6.1 Sol for coding?
Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a coding score, 82.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemma 2 27B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemma 2 27B for output tokens 15.4x cheaper ($0.65 vs $10.00 per million).
Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or GPT-6.1 Sol?
Gemma 2 27B costs $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; GPT-6.1 Sol costs $2.00 and $10.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 2 27B or GPT-6.1 Sol?
GPT-6.1 Sol, with 1.05M tokens against 8K.
How many benchmarks is the Gemma 2 27B vs GPT-6.1 Sol comparison based on?
29 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Gemma 2 27B's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GPT-6.1 Sol's on 5. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.