Background Logo

Gemma 2 27B vs LLaMA 3.1 (405B): Benchmarks, Pricing, and Context Window Comparison

Gemma 2 27B vs LLaMA 3.1 (405B) compares provider, context window, token pricing, benchmark performance, and release timeline in one side-by-side view. Use this page to quickly identify which model is a better fit for your production constraints, quality targets, and estimated cost per request.

Verdict

Gemma 2 27B has lower listed token pricing, while LLaMA 3.1 (405B) can still be preferable if benchmark results better match your workload.

Author: Mirai Minds Research Team

Last updated:

Compare
Gemma 2 27B
to
LLaMA 3.1 (405B)
Overview
Gemma 2 27B was released the same time LLaMA 3.1 (405B).
Gemma 2 27B
LLaMA 3.1 (405B)
Provider
The entity that provides this model.
Google
Meta
Input Context Window
The number of tokens supported by the input context window.
8,192
tokens
128K
tokens
Maximum Output Tokens
The number of tokens that can be generated by the model in a single request.
Not specified.
2,048
tokens
Release Date
When the model was first released.
2024-06-27
2024-07-23
Leaderboard
Gemma 2 27B
LLaMA 3.1 (405B)
Rank
Unknown
Unknown
Arena Elo
Not specified.
Not specified.
95% CI
Not specified.
Not specified.
Votes
Not specified.
Not specified.
License
Not specified.
Not specified.
Knowledge Cutoff
Unknown
Unknown
Pricing
Gemma 2 27B
LLaMA 3.1 (405B)
Input
Cost of input data provided to the model.
$0.27
per million tokens
$1.79
per million tokens
Output
Cost of output tokens generated by the model.
$0.27
per million tokens
$1.79
per million tokens
Benchmarks
Compare relevant benchmarks between Gemma 2 27B and LLaMA 3.1 (405B) Instruct.
Gemma 2 27B
LLaMA 3.1 (405B)
MMLU
Evaluating LLM knowledge acquisition in zero-shot and few-shot settings.
75.2
(5-shot)
85.2
(5-shot)
MMMU
A wide ranging multi-discipline and multimodal benchmark.
Benchmark not available.
Benchmark not available.
HellaSwag
A challenging sentence completion benchmark.
86.4
(10-shot)
Benchmark not available.