Gemma 2 27B vs Weaver (alpha)
Updated October 21, 2026. 0 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.65
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.75
Decision reading
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Gemma 2 27B has the edge where output tokens cost 1.2x less, and where the context window is larger, 8K against 8K tokens.
- Shared results
- 0
- Gemma 2 27B only
- 36
- Weaver (alpha) only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 of 9
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.
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
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Long documents
Listed context window
Gemma 2 27B
Gemma 2 27B takes 8K tokens against 8K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Weaver (alpha)
Gemma 2 27B $0.0010, Weaver (alpha) $0.0008 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Gemma 2 27B not benchmarked, Weaver (alpha) not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- No category has a result for both models.
- Widest single gap
- No benchmark has a result for both models.
- Output price
- Gemma 2 27B $0.65 against Weaver (alpha) $0.75 per million output tokens, 1.2x apart.
- Context window
- Gemma 2 27B takes 8K tokens, Weaver (alpha) 8K.
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.
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Weaver (alpha) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text: coding | 1211 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1228 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Weaver (alpha) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.1 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Weaver (alpha) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 39 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Weaver (alpha) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 36.5% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1198 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1171 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1206 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Weaver (alpha) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | 1.4% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| MATH level 5 | 27.9% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1212 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1221 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Weaver (alpha) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 68.0% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| MMLU | 75.7% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1228 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1198 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1241 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1208 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Weaver (alpha) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index19 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Weaver (alpha) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 48.0% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMCA | 7.1% | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text | 1231 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1206 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1240 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1242 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1217 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1221 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| 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 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1228 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1234 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1277 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1224 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1230 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1249 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1212 | Not measured | Only Gemma 2 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Weaver (alpha) | 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
Weaver (alpha) costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Weaver (alpha) costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Weaver (alpha) 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 | Mancer Weaver (alpha) |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Mancer | |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | July 13, 2024 | August 2, 2023 |
| Context window | 8K | 8K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.65 | $0.40 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.65 | $0.75 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Gemma 2 27B better than Weaver (alpha) for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Gemma 2 27B has the edge where output tokens cost 1.2x less, and where the context window is larger, 8K against 8K tokens.
Which is cheaper, Gemma 2 27B or Weaver (alpha)?
Gemma 2 27B costs $0.65 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; Weaver (alpha) costs $0.40 and $0.75. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 2 27B or Weaver (alpha)?
Gemma 2 27B, with 8K tokens against 8K.
How many benchmarks is the Gemma 2 27B vs Weaver (alpha) comparison based on?
0 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Gemma 2 27B's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Weaver (alpha)'s on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.