Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 17, 2026noindex (thin pair)

Claude 3 Opus vs Google: Gemma 3 27B benchmark

Name: Claude 3 Opus vs Google: Gemma 3 27B AI benchmark comparison
Creator: CompareLLM
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This page compares Claude 3 Opus (Anthropic) and Google: Gemma 3 27B (Google) using the latest snapshots we have as of Aug 17, 2026. Google: Gemma 3 27B wins on output price at $0.45/1M. Google: Gemma 3 27B has the larger context window (262k tokens). Every cell below is a dated snapshot from a named public source — we do not invent missing scores, and we do not run SWE-bench ourselves.

Share Analysis:

WhatsApp Telegram X / Post LinkedIn Reddit

Anthropic

Claude 3 Opus

Original Claude 3 flagship. Kept so opus 3 vs later Opus and vs GPT-4o still resolve.

Elo 1,248$75/1M out

Google

Google: Gemma 3 27B

Auto-discovered from OpenRouter (google/gemma-3-27b-it). Preview until a second source matches.

$0.44999999999999996/1M out

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Instant pairwise benchmark recalculation across 400+ LLMs

Model A

Model B

Quick vs:vs Claude Opus 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Claude 3 Opus (6)vsGoogle: Gemma 3 27B (3)

Claude 3 Opus: 6W (67%)Overall: Claude 3 OpusGoogle: Gemma 3 27B: 3W (33%)

← Claude 3 OpusGoogle: Gemma 3 27B →

Claude 3 Opus (4/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy

Preference Elo

1,248vs—

Coding Elo

—vs—

SWE-bench

38.4%vs—

LiveBench

46.2%vs—

GPQA Diamond

50.4%vs—

Claude 3 Opus: 4WGoogle: Gemma 3 27B: 0W

Claude 3 Opus (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

48 tok/svs—

Time to first token

420 msvs—

Claude 3 Opus: 2WGoogle: Gemma 3 27B: 0W

Google: Gemma 3 27B (3/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$75/1Mvs$0.45/1M

Input price

$15/1Mvs$0.08/1M

Context window

200kvs262k

Claude 3 Opus: 0WGoogle: Gemma 3 27B: 3W

Capability Matchup Radar

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Each spoke is a skill. Farther from the center is better (0–100th percentile). Tap any dot to inspect details.

Tap any node to inspect

Percentile 0–100

Dimensional AdvantageClaude 3 Opus 4/6

Preference Elo

No shared data

Throughput Speed

No shared data

Token Price Efficiency

Google: Gemma 3 27B

$74.55/1M cheaper

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

—

Elo

High is better

1,248

EloHigh is better

—

LiveBench

High is better

46.2%

LiveBenchHigh is better

—

SWE-bench

High is better

38.4%

SWE-benchHigh is better

—

GPQA

High is better

50.4%

GPQAHigh is better

—

TTFT

Low is better

420 ms

TTFTLow is better

—

Speed

High is better

48 tok/s

SpeedHigh is better

—

In $

Low is better

$15.00 / 1M

In $Low is better

$0.08 / 1M+18650%

Out $

Low is better

$75.00 / 1M

Out $Low is better

$0.45 / 1M+16567%

Context

High is better

200k

ContextHigh is better

262k+31%

Interactive Simulator (USD)

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Simulate monthly production API costs in USD (US Dollar).

Save up to 99% with Google: Gemma 3 27B

Monthly Volume50M tokens/mo

Quick Presets:

Token Ratio (In vs Out)70% In / 30% Out

RAG / Search (10% out)Coding / Chat (50% out)

Claude 3 Opus$1,650.00 / mo

In: $525Out: $1,125

Google: Gemma 3 27B$9.55 / mo

In: $2.8Out: $6.75

Estimated Cost Delta

Google: Gemma 3 27B is estimated to save $1,640.45/month ($19,685/year).

Based on 50M tokens (30% gen)

Key Selection Recommendations

1
Google: Gemma 3 27B:Pick Google: Gemma 3 27B when you are optimizing output cost.

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsinsufficient data

Need SWE-bench on both sides.

High-volume chatGoogle: Gemma 3 27B

Lower output list price ($0.45/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIinsufficient data

Need TTFT on both sides.

Long-document RAGGoogle: Gemma 3 27B

Larger window (262k).

Screenshots / visionClaude 3 Opus

Claude 3 Opus is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	insufficient data	Need SWE-bench on both sides.
High-volume chat	Google: Gemma 3 27B	Lower output list price ($0.45/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	insufficient data	Need TTFT on both sides.
Long-document RAG	Google: Gemma 3 27B	Larger window (262k).
Screenshots / vision	Claude 3 Opus	Claude 3 Opus is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Community Sentiment

Cast Your Matchup Vote

0 total votes

Community Discussions (0)

No comments posted on this matchup yet. Be the first to share an evaluation note!

Share card

The real PNG is generated at /compare/claude-3-opus-vs-gemma-3-27b-it/opengraph-image for crawlers.

PNG

CompareLLM Matrix

Verified head-to-head card

LIVE

Anthropic

Claude 3 Opus

Elo 1,248

LiveBench46.2%

SWE-bench38.4%

Speed48 tok/s

Output cost$75/1M

Google

Google: Gemma 3 27B

Elo n/a

LiveBench—

SWE-bench—

Speed—

Output cost$0.45/1M

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Claude 3 Opus or Google: Gemma 3 27B?: We do not have preference Elo for both models, so we do not declare an overall winner. Compare the metrics that exist.
Which is better at coding, Claude 3 Opus or Google: Gemma 3 27B?: SWE-bench is missing for at least one model, so we do not rank coding from a single number.
Which is cheaper to run in production?: Google: Gemma 3 27B output tokens are $0.45/1M versus $75/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.
Which is faster, Claude 3 Opus or Google: Gemma 3 27B?: We do not have TTFT for both models.
Which has the larger context window?: Google: Gemma 3 27B accepts 262k tokens versus 200k.
Can I self-host either model?: Neither model is marked open-weights here. You are comparing hosted APIs.
Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?: No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.
What does preference Elo mean on this page?: Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. Claude 3 Opus and Google: Gemma 3 27B Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

All Claude 3 Opus matchups →|All Google: Gemma 3 27B matchups →

Claude 3 Opus vs Claude Opus 4 (next opus)Claude Opus 4.5 vs Claude 3 Opus Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude 3 Opus Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Claude 3 Opus Gemini 3 Pro vs Claude 3 Opus Gemini 3 Flash vs Claude 3 Opus

Claude 3 Opus vs Google: Gemma 3 27B benchmark

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Claude 3 Opus (6)vsGoogle: Gemma 3 27B (3)

Claude 3 Opus: 6W (67%)Overall: Claude 3 OpusGoogle: Gemma 3 27B: 3W (33%)

← Claude 3 OpusGoogle: Gemma 3 27B →

Claude 3 Opus (4/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy

Preference Elo

1,248vs—

Coding Elo

—vs—

SWE-bench

38.4%vs—

LiveBench

46.2%vs—

GPQA Diamond

50.4%vs—

Claude 3 Opus: 4WGoogle: Gemma 3 27B: 0W

Claude 3 Opus (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

48 tok/svs—

Time to first token

420 msvs—

Claude 3 Opus: 2WGoogle: Gemma 3 27B: 0W

Google: Gemma 3 27B (3/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$75/1Mvs$0.45/1M

Input price

$15/1Mvs$0.08/1M

Context window

200kvs262k

Claude 3 Opus: 0WGoogle: Gemma 3 27B: 3W

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsinsufficient data

Need SWE-bench on both sides.

High-volume chatGoogle: Gemma 3 27B

Lower output list price ($0.45/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIinsufficient data

Need TTFT on both sides.

Long-document RAGGoogle: Gemma 3 27B

Larger window (262k).

Screenshots / visionClaude 3 Opus

Claude 3 Opus is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	insufficient data	Need SWE-bench on both sides.
High-volume chat	Google: Gemma 3 27B	Lower output list price ($0.45/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	insufficient data	Need TTFT on both sides.
Long-document RAG	Google: Gemma 3 27B	Larger window (262k).
Screenshots / vision	Claude 3 Opus	Claude 3 Opus is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Claude 3 Opus or Google: Gemma 3 27B?

We do not have preference Elo for both models, so we do not declare an overall winner. Compare the metrics that exist.

Which is better at coding, Claude 3 Opus or Google: Gemma 3 27B?

SWE-bench is missing for at least one model, so we do not rank coding from a single number.

Which is cheaper to run in production?

Google: Gemma 3 27B output tokens are $0.45/1M versus $75/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.

Which is faster, Claude 3 Opus or Google: Gemma 3 27B?

We do not have TTFT for both models.

Which has the larger context window?

Google: Gemma 3 27B accepts 262k tokens versus 200k.

Can I self-host either model?

Neither model is marked open-weights here. You are comparing hosted APIs.

Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?

No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.

What does preference Elo mean on this page?

Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. Claude 3 Opus and Google: Gemma 3 27B Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.