| Signal | Gemma 2 9B | Delta | WizardLM-2 8x22B |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 17 | -- | |
Benchmarks | 34 | +34 | |
Pricing | 0 | 0 | |
Context window size | 62 | -14 | |
Recency | 16 | +13 | |
Output Capacity | 20 | -45 | |
| Overall Result | 2 wins | of 6 | 3 wins |
6
days higher
3
days
21
days higher
Microsoft
Gemma 2 9B saves you $85.50/month
That's $1026.00/year compared to WizardLM-2 8x22B at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Gemma 2 9B | WizardLM-2 8x22B | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 34 | 35 | WizardLM-2 8x22B |
| Rank | #310 | #308 | WizardLM-2 8x22B |
| Quality Rank | #310 | #308 | WizardLM-2 8x22B |
| Adoption Rank | #310 | #308 | WizardLM-2 8x22B |
| Parameters | 9B | 22B | -- |
| Context Window | 8K | 66K | WizardLM-2 8x22B |
| Pricing | $0.03/$0.09/M | $0.62/$0.62/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 17 | 17 | Gemma 2 9B |
| Benchmarks | 34 | -- | Gemma 2 9B |
| Pricing | 0 | 1 | WizardLM-2 8x22B |
| Context window size | 62 | 76 | WizardLM-2 8x22B |
| Recency | 16 | 2 | Gemma 2 9B |
| Output Capacity | 20 | 65 | WizardLM-2 8x22B |
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 34/100 (rank #310), placing it in the top -7% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 35/100 (rank #308), placing it in the top -6% 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 9B offers 90% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $1.80/month with Gemma 2 9B vs $18.60/month with WizardLM-2 8x22B - a $16.80 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 9B also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (66K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.09/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (35/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Gemma 2 9B and WizardLM-2 8x22B are extremely close in overall performance (only 0.8999999999999986 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
Best for Quality
Gemma 2 9B
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Gemma 2 9B
90% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Gemma 2 9B
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Gemma 2 9B
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Gemma 2 9B
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Google
| Capability | Gemma 2 9B | WizardLM-2 8x22B |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Microsoft
Gemma 2 9B saves you $1.70/month
That's 91% cheaper than WizardLM-2 8x22B 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 9B | WizardLM-2 8x22B |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 8K | 66K |
| Max Output Tokens | -- | 8,000 |
| Open Source | Yes | Yes |
| Created | Jun 28, 2024 | Apr 16, 2024 |
WizardLM-2 8x22B scores 35/100 (rank #308) compared to Gemma 2 9B's 34/100 (rank #310), giving it a 1-point advantage. WizardLM-2 8x22B is the stronger overall choice, though Gemma 2 9B may excel in specific areas like cost efficiency.
Gemma 2 9B is ranked #310 and WizardLM-2 8x22B is ranked #308 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 9B is cheaper at $0.09/M output tokens vs WizardLM-2 8x22B's $0.62/M output tokens - 6.9x more expensive. Input token pricing: Gemma 2 9B at $0.03/M vs WizardLM-2 8x22B at $0.62/M.
WizardLM-2 8x22B has a larger context window of 65,535 tokens compared to Gemma 2 9B's 8,192 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.