| Signal | Gemma 2 27B | Delta | R1 0528 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 33 | -33 | |
Benchmarks | 83 | +4 | |
Pricing | 1 | -2 | |
Context window size | 62 | -21 | |
Recency | 18 | -58 | |
Output Capacity | 55 | -25 | |
| Overall Result | 1 wins | of 6 | 5 wins |
11
days higher
6
days
13
days higher
DeepSeek
Gemma 2 27B saves you $55.00/month
That's $660.00/year compared to R1 0528 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Gemma 2 27B | R1 0528 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 80 | 79 | Gemma 2 27B |
| Rank | #27 | #29 | Gemma 2 27B |
| Quality Rank | #27 | #29 | Gemma 2 27B |
| Adoption Rank | #27 | #29 | Gemma 2 27B |
| Parameters | 27B | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 8K | 164K | R1 0528 |
| Pricing | $0.65/$0.65/M | $0.45/$2.15/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 33 | 67 | R1 0528 |
| Benchmarks | 83 | 80 | Gemma 2 27B |
| Pricing | 1 | 2 | R1 0528 |
| Context window size | 62 | 83 | R1 0528 |
| Recency | 18 | 77 | R1 0528 |
| Output Capacity | 55 | 80 | R1 0528 |
Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Here's what the scores mean for these two models:
Scores 80/100 (rank #27), placing it in the top 91% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 79/100 (rank #29), placing it in the top 90% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 1-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
Gemma 2 27B offers 50% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $19.50/month with Gemma 2 27B vs $39.00/month with R1 0528 - a $19.50 monthly difference.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Higher benchmark score (0/100) indicates stronger performance on coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Faster response time (speed score 0/100) is critical for user-facing chat. Gemma 2 27B also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (164K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.65/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (80/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Gemma 2 27B and R1 0528 are extremely close in overall performance (only 0.7000000000000028 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
Best for Quality
Gemma 2 27B
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Gemma 2 27B
50% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Gemma 2 27B
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Gemma 2 27B
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Gemma 2 27B
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Google
| Capability | Gemma 2 27B | R1 0528 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Callingdiffers | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoningdiffers | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
DeepSeek
Gemma 2 27B saves you $1.44/month
That's 42% cheaper than R1 0528 at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | Gemma 2 27B | R1 0528 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 8K | 164K |
| Max Output Tokens | 2,048 | 65,536 |
| Open Source | Yes | Yes |
| Created | Jul 13, 2024 | May 28, 2025 |
Gemma 2 27B scores 80/100 (rank #27) compared to R1 0528's 79/100 (rank #29), giving it a 1-point advantage. Gemma 2 27B is the stronger overall choice, though R1 0528 may excel in specific areas like certain benchmarks.
Gemma 2 27B is ranked #27 and R1 0528 is ranked #29 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (90%) from MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations, with capabilities and context window as tiebreakers (10%). Scores update hourly.
Gemma 2 27B is cheaper at $0.65/M output tokens vs R1 0528's $2.15/M output tokens - 3.3x more expensive. Input token pricing: Gemma 2 27B at $0.65/M vs R1 0528 at $0.45/M.
R1 0528 has a larger context window of 163,840 tokens compared to Gemma 2 27B's 8,192 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.