Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Gemma 3 27B vs GPT-5.4 Nano

GPT-5.4 Nano leads Gemma 3 27B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 20.7 to 4.9, and Gemma 3 27B costs 4.2x less per output token ($0.30 vs $1.25 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 53 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Gemma 3 27B Replace GPT-5.4 Nano
Gemma 3 27BGoogle
Coding
No data
Overall
31.4
Output $/M
$0.30
8
GPT-5.4 NanoOpenAI
Coding
44.8
Overall
45.7
Output $/M
$1.25
45
vs boards won of 53 shared

Gemma 3 27B or GPT-5.4 Nano: which to pick

Only GPT-5.4 Nano has a coding score, 44.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemma 3 27B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Gemma 3 27B for output tokens 4.2x cheaper ($0.30 vs $1.25 per million) and work measured by LMArena Text: science or LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare, where it leads.

Model AGemma 3 27BGoogleNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BGPT-5.4 NanoOpenAI44.8/1002 independent benchmarks$0.14 per solved task
Shared results
53
Gemma 3 27B only
13
GPT-5.4 Nano only
32
Like-for-like categories
7 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.

At a glance

Coding index
Gemma 3 27B not benchmarked, GPT-5.4 Nano 44.8 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Agentic work, 40.7 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): Gemma 3 27B 7.3% against GPT-5.4 Nano 76.7%, 69.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Gemma 3 27B $0.30 against GPT-5.4 Nano $1.25 per million output tokens, 4.2x apart.
Context window
Gemma 3 27B takes 131K tokens, GPT-5.4 Nano 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-5.4 NanoTies
Coding05
Intelligence02
Agentic work02
Reasoning09
Math03
Knowledge31
General523
All shared boards845
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index05
Coding benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and GPT-5.4 Nano
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BGPT-5.4 NanoLeader
Aider polyglot4.9%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
AA Coding Index10.156.1GPT-5.4 Nano
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured84.0%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured69.8%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured26.1%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured14.5%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)Not measured41.6%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)13.7%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
SciCode23.3%47.2%GPT-5.4 Nano
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)3.8%42.4%GPT-5.4 Nano
WeirdMLNot measured49.2%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
ALE-BenchNot measured1004.5Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LMArena Text: coding13221404GPT-5.4 Nano
LMArena Text: software and IT13541402GPT-5.4 Nano
SciCode0.0%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Intelligence benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and GPT-5.4 Nano
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BGPT-5.4 NanoLeader
AA Intelligence Index4.920.7GPT-5.4 Nano
Epoch Capabilities Index130.0146.0GPT-5.4 Nano
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Agentic work benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and GPT-5.4 Nano
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BGPT-5.4 NanoLeader
AA Agentic Index0.116.0GPT-5.4 Nano
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured38.2%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured5.0%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured6.3%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured44.8%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
τ²-Bench Telecom10.5%76.0%GPT-5.4 Nano
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL)29.5%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index09
Reasoning benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and GPT-5.4 Nano
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BGPT-5.4 NanoLeader
GPQA DiamondNot measured77.5%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured73.6%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)42.8%81.7%GPT-5.4 Nano
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)4.4%28.3%GPT-5.4 Nano
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)47.7%78.5%GPT-5.4 Nano
ARC-AGINot measured51.5%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
ARC-AGI-2Not measured5.7%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured45.0%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured9.0%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts13401381GPT-5.4 Nano
LMArena Text: expert13041396GPT-5.4 Nano
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13531387GPT-5.4 Nano
LMArena Vision: diagrams11561210GPT-5.4 Nano
LMArena Vision: homework11601225GPT-5.4 Nano
Kagi LLM Benchmark35.1%39.7%GPT-5.4 Nano
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
Math benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and GPT-5.4 Nano
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BGPT-5.4 NanoLeader
AIMENot measured88.8%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
AA Math Index20.7Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)20.7%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
OTIS Mock AIME22.5%87.8%GPT-5.4 Nano
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured44.9%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
FrontierMath, tier 4Not measured12.2%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
ProofBenchNot measured5.0%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
MATH level 574.0%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
LMArena Text: math13121405GPT-5.4 Nano
LMArena Text: mathematical work13271409GPT-5.4 Nano
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index31
Knowledge benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and GPT-5.4 Nano
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BGPT-5.4 NanoLeader
MMLU ProNot measured77.2%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured77.9%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured51.9%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured61.2%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured67.4%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured59.1%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured41.0%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)66.9%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured11.7%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
GeoBench52.0%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
LMArena Text: science13831374Gemma 3 27B
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13911369Gemma 3 27B
LMArena Text: legal and government13751368Gemma 3 27B
LMArena Text: business and finance13601366GPT-5.4 Nano
FACTS Benchmark Suite29.1%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and GPT-5.4 Nano
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BGPT-5.4 NanoLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index523
General benchmarks for Gemma 3 27B and GPT-5.4 Nano
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BGPT-5.4 NanoLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured38.1%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured77.1%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Vals Multimodal IndexNot measured47.6%Only GPT-5.4 Nano measured
IFBench31.8%75.9%GPT-5.4 Nano
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)7.3%76.7%GPT-5.4 Nano
DTBench52.5%80.3%GPT-5.4 Nano
LMCA12.3%36.9%GPT-5.4 Nano
Fiction.LiveBench33.3%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)79.9%Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
LMArena Text13581372GPT-5.4 Nano
LMArena Text: instruction following13211362GPT-5.4 Nano
LMArena Text: creative writing13451315Gemma 3 27B
LMArena Vision11651196GPT-5.4 Nano
LMArena Text: English13771381GPT-5.4 Nano
LMArena Text: non-English13341359GPT-5.4 Nano
LMArena Text: Chinese13461391GPT-5.4 Nano
LMArena Text: German13621368GPT-5.4 Nano
LMArena Text: Japanese12871343GPT-5.4 Nano
LMArena Text: Korean13081321GPT-5.4 Nano
LMArena Text: French13681395GPT-5.4 Nano
LMArena Text: Spanish13491371GPT-5.4 Nano
LMArena Text: Russian13491363GPT-5.4 Nano
LMArena Text: Polish13451366GPT-5.4 Nano
LMArena Text: multi-turn13451382GPT-5.4 Nano
LMArena Text: longer queries13331365GPT-5.4 Nano
LMArena Text: writing and language13471338Gemma 3 27B
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13201325GPT-5.4 Nano
LMArena Vision: English11881202GPT-5.4 Nano
LMArena Vision: Chinese11641232GPT-5.4 Nano
LMArena Vision: reading text11561204GPT-5.4 Nano
LMArena Vision: humor11661161Gemma 3 27B
LMArena Vision: captioning1151Not measuredOnly Gemma 3 27B measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing things11961141Gemma 3 27B
LMArena Vision: creative writing11771159Gemma 3 27B
Neither model has a result on the other 12 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-5.4 Nano
BenchmarkGemma 3 27BGPT-5.4 NanoLeader
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$0.0002Fits in one request
GPT-5.4 Nano$0.0008Fits in one request

Gemma 3 27B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Gemma 3 27B$0.0049Fits in one request
GPT-5.4 Nano$0.014Fits in one request

Gemma 3 27B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Gemma 3 27B$0.019Exceeds the context window
GPT-5.4 Nano$0.052Fits 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-5.4 Nano
SpecificationGoogle Gemma 3 27BOpenAI GPT-5.4 Nano
MakerGoogleOpenAI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedMarch 12, 2025March 17, 2026
Context window131K400K
Input $/Mtok$0.08$0.20
Output $/Mtok$0.30$1.25
Coding indexNot benchmarked44.8
Independent measurements behind it02
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.14
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Gemma 3 27B better than GPT-5.4 Nano for coding?

Only GPT-5.4 Nano has a coding score, 44.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; Gemma 3 27B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Gemma 3 27B for output tokens 4.2x cheaper ($0.30 vs $1.25 per million) and work measured by LMArena Text: science or LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Gemma 3 27B or GPT-5.4 Nano?

Gemma 3 27B costs $0.08 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens; GPT-5.4 Nano costs $0.20 and $1.25. Cost per solved task is known for GPT-5.4 Nano only.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemma 3 27B or GPT-5.4 Nano?

GPT-5.4 Nano, with 400K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks is the Gemma 3 27B vs GPT-5.4 Nano comparison based on?

53 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Gemma 3 27B's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GPT-5.4 Nano's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next