LLMBenchmark.ai

Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemma 3 27B vs GPT-5.2

Updated October 21, 2026. 54 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Replace Gemma 3 27B Replace GPT-5.2
Gemma 3 27BGoogle
Coding
4.9
Overall
4.9
Output $/M
$0.35
0
GPT-5.2OpenAI
Coding
58.9
Overall
30.4
Output $/M
$14.00
54
vs boards won of 54 shared

Decision reading

Pick GPT-5.2 for coding: it scores 58.9 on the Vibe Coding Index against 4.9 for Gemma 3 27B.

Pick Gemma 3 27B when output tokens cost 40.0x less.

Model AGemma 3 27BGoogle4.9/1001 independent benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BGPT-5.2OpenAI58.9/1002 independent benchmarks$1.91 per solved task
Shared results
54
Gemma 3 27B only
8
GPT-5.2 only
57
Like-for-like categories
7 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.

At a glance

Coding index
Gemma 3 27B 4.9 from 1 benchmark, GPT-5.2 58.9 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Agentic work, 74.3 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run): Gemma 3 27B 20.7% against GPT-5.2 99.0%, 78.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemma 3 27B $0.35 against GPT-5.2 $14.00 per million output tokens, 40.0x apart.
Context window
Gemma 3 27B takes 131K tokens, GPT-5.2 400K.

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.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGemma 3 27BBarsGPT-5.2Ties
Coding04
Intelligence02
Agentic work01
Reasoning08
Math05
Knowledge05
General029
All shared boards054
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index04
Coding benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BGPT-5.2Leader
Aider polyglot4.9%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
SWE-bench VerifiedNot measured72.8%Only GPT-5.2 measured
SWE-bench MultilingualNot measured66.7%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1417Only GPT-5.2 measured
AA Coding Index10.1Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured85.4%Only GPT-5.2 measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured75.8%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured53.5%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)13.7%89.4%GPT-5.2
SciCode23.3%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)3.8%47.0%GPT-5.2
Terminal-BenchNot measured64.9%Only GPT-5.2 measured
GSO-BenchNot measured27.5%Only GPT-5.2 measured
WeirdMLNot measured72.2%Only GPT-5.2 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured1293.5Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: coding13221442GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: software and IT13541434GPT-5.2
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1427Only GPT-5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BGPT-5.2Leader
AA Intelligence Index4.930.4GPT-5.2
Epoch Capabilities Index130.0153.7GPT-5.2
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BGPT-5.2Leader
AA Agentic Index0.1Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
Design Arena: agents building web appsNot measured1086Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building full-stack appsNot measured1043Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building mobile appsNot measured1094Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building Android appsNot measured1064Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: agents building Godot gamesNot measured1142Only GPT-5.2 measured
τ²-Bench Telecom10.5%84.8%GPT-5.2
METR time horizonsNot measured75.3%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Remote Labor IndexNot measured2.5%Only GPT-5.2 measured
GDPvalNot measured49.7%Only GPT-5.2 measured
DeepResearch BenchNot measured41.1%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$3,591Only GPT-5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index08
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BGPT-5.2Leader
GPQA DiamondNot measured91.7%Only GPT-5.2 measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured86.7%Only GPT-5.2 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)42.8%90.3%GPT-5.2
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)4.4%37.7%GPT-5.2
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)47.7%91.4%GPT-5.2
ARC-AGINot measured86.2%Only GPT-5.2 measured
ARC-AGI-2Not measured52.9%Only GPT-5.2 measured
SimpleBenchNot measured45.8%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured48.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured23.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
EBR-benchNot measured23.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
VPCTNot measured84.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13401428GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: expert13041445GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13531431GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision: diagrams11561265GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision: homework11601276GPT-5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Math benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BGPT-5.2Leader
AIMENot measured96.9%Only GPT-5.2 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)Not measured94.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
AA Math Index20.799.0GPT-5.2
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)20.7%99.0%GPT-5.2
OTIS Mock AIME22.5%96.1%GPT-5.2
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured67.4%Only GPT-5.2 measured
FrontierMath, tier 4Not measured31.7%Only GPT-5.2 measured
ProofBenchNot measured15.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
MATH level 574.0%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
LMArena Text: math13121440GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: mathematical work13271442GPT-5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index05
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BGPT-5.2Leader
MMLU ProNot measured86.2%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured82.8%Only GPT-5.2 measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured66.0%Only GPT-5.2 measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured65.9%Only GPT-5.2 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured75.8%Only GPT-5.2 measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured67.1%Only GPT-5.2 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)Not measured94.1%Only GPT-5.2 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured49.8%Only GPT-5.2 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)66.9%87.4%GPT-5.2
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured37.1%Only GPT-5.2 measured
GeoBench52.0%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
LMArena Text: science13831425GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13911425GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: legal and government13751427GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: business and finance13601414GPT-5.2
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BGPT-5.2Leader
Design Arena: websitesNot measured1196Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1190Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1196Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1202Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1079Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1171Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: SVGNot measured1137Only GPT-5.2 measured
Design Arena: ASCII artNot measured1153Only GPT-5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index029
General benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BGPT-5.2Leader
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured49.3%Only GPT-5.2 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured84.4%Only GPT-5.2 measured
IFBench31.8%75.4%GPT-5.2
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)7.3%82.7%GPT-5.2
DTBench52.5%90.9%GPT-5.2
LMCA12.3%43.9%GPT-5.2
Fiction.LiveBench33.3%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)79.9%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
CL-benchNot measured18.2%Only GPT-5.2 measured
Furniture assemblyNot measured38.3%Only GPT-5.2 measured
LMArena Text13581416GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: instruction following13211409GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: creative writing13451376GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision11651246GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: English13771422GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: non-English13341405GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: Chinese13461447GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: German13621444GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: Japanese12871420GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: Korean13081374GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: French13681454GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: Spanish13491413GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: Russian13491415GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: Polish13451426GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: multi-turn13451419GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: longer queries13331413GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: writing and language13471392GPT-5.2
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13201378GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision: English11881243GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision: Chinese11641305GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision: reading text11561257GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision: humor11661227GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision: captioning11511267GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision: recognizing things11961232GPT-5.2
LMArena Vision: creative writing11771225GPT-5.2
LMArena DocumentNot measured1405Only GPT-5.2 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and GPT-5.2
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BGPT-5.2Leader
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 3 27B$0.0003Fits in one request
GPT-5.2$0.0088Fits in one request

Gemma 3 27B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemma 3 27B$0.0050Fits in one request
GPT-5.2$0.130Fits in one request

Gemma 3 27B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemma 3 27B$0.019Exceeds the context window
GPT-5.2$0.490Fits in one request

Gemma 3 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.

Specifications of Gemma 3 27B and GPT-5.2
SpecificationGoogle Gemma 3 27BOpenAI GPT-5.2
MakerGoogleOpenAI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedMarch 12, 2025December 10, 2025
Context window131K400K
Input $/Mtok$0.08$1.75
Output $/Mtok$0.35$14.00
Coding index4.958.9
Independent measurements behind it12
Cost per solved taskNot computable$1.91
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemma 3 27B better than GPT-5.2 for coding?

Pick GPT-5.2 for coding: it scores 58.9 on the Vibe Coding Index against 4.9 for Gemma 3 27B. Pick Gemma 3 27B when output tokens cost 40.0x less.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 3 27B or GPT-5.2?

Gemma 3 27B costs $0.08 per million input tokens and $0.35 per million output tokens; GPT-5.2 costs $1.75 and $14.00. Cost per solved task is known for GPT-5.2 only.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 3 27B or GPT-5.2?

GPT-5.2, with 400K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemma 3 27B vs GPT-5.2 comparison based on?

54 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Gemma 3 27B's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and GPT-5.2's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next