Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemma 2 27B: which should you choose in 2026?
Claude Sonnet 5.5 (by Anthropic) and Gemma 2 27B (by Google) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
Gemma 2 27B is about 6.2× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.65 vs $4.00 per 1M tokens).
Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the larger context window (1,000,000 tokens vs 8,192 tokens).
Choose Claude Sonnet 5.5 if…
- • you work with longer documents, transcripts, or codebases
- • you need a model with explicit reasoning support
- • you need image inputs
Choose Gemma 2 27B if…
- • lower blended API cost matters for your workload
The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework. Guardrail-aware score | — | — |
A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing. Accuracy | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | — |
A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests. Resolved | — | — |
Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol. Mean task success | — | — |
A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench. Weighted peer-assessment score | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | — | — |
A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged. Accuracy | — | — |
| Arena preference scores | ||
Human preference score | — | 1289 ±3 |
Benchmark sources
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09. Arena data last refreshed Oct 2, 2026.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Gemma 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | Anthropic | |
| API provider | Anthropic | |
| Input context | 1,000,000 tokens | 8,192 tokens |
| Maximum output | 128,000 tokens | 2,048 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Sep 28, 2026 | Jul 13, 2024 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | 2024-06-30 |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text, Image, File | Text |
| Outputs | Text | Text |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Vision | Yes | No |
| Image Generation | No | No |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API pricing | ||
| Input (per 1M tokens) | $2.00 | $0.65 |
| Output (per 1M tokens) | $10.00 | $0.65 |
| Blended 3:1 input/output | $4.00 | $0.65 |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not measured |
| Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table. | ||
Data sources
- Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)
Catalog data last updated Sep 28, 2026.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing Claude Sonnet 5.5 from Anthropic with Gemma 2 27B from Google? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Gemma 2 27B | AI Images | AI Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writingmate Pro Most popular | $20/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | VEO 3.1, Kling 3.0 |
Writingmate Ultimate Power users | $60/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | VEO 3.1, Kling 3.0 |
Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemma 2 27B FAQ
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Gemma 2 27B?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. Gemma 2 27B is about 6.2× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.65 vs $4.00 per 1M tokens). Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the larger context window (1,000,000 tokens vs 8,192 tokens).
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
Gemma 2 27B is about 6.2× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.65 vs $4.00 per 1M tokens).
Which model supports more context?
Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the larger context window (1,000,000 tokens vs 8,192 tokens).
Can I switch between Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Gemma 2 27B?
Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.
Related comparisons
More Claude Sonnet 5.5 comparisons
GPT-6.1 Sol Pro
OpenAI
GPT-6.1 Sol Pro is the same underlying model as GPT-6.1 Sol, served with reasoning.mode set to pro for higher-quality responses on complex tasks.
GPT-6.1 Sol
OpenAI
GPT-6.1 Sol is an upgrade to GPT-6 Sol from OpenAI, positioned below the flagship GPT-6 Astra in the GPT-6 series.
Jev Router
Typesafe
Jev Router picks the best model and reasoning effort for each request, balancing quality, speed, and cost.
GPT-6 Luna Pro
OpenAI
GPT-6 Luna Pro is the same underlying model as GPT-6 Luna, served with reasoning.mode set to pro for higher-quality responses on complex tasks.
Grok 4.7
xAI
Grok 4.7 is SpaceXAI's flagship model for coding, agentic tasks, and knowledge work, succeeding Grok 4.6.
Fugu Ultra v2
Sakana AI
Fugu Ultra v2 is the higher-performance model in Sakana AI's Fugu family.
More Gemma 2 27B comparisons
Ling 3.1 Flash
inclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash is a hybrid reasoning mixture-of-experts model from inclusionAI, with 25B active parameters out of 560B total.
Pareto 26.10 Preview
Unbiased
Pareto is a multimodal composite model built for research, coding, and agentic workflows, while delivering frontier-level performance across a broad range of general-purpose tasks.
GPT-6.1 Sol Pro
OpenAI
GPT-6.1 Sol Pro is the same underlying model as GPT-6.1 Sol, served with reasoning.mode set to pro for higher-quality responses on complex tasks.
GPT-6.1 Sol
OpenAI
GPT-6.1 Sol is an upgrade to GPT-6 Sol from OpenAI, positioned below the flagship GPT-6 Astra in the GPT-6 series.
Jev Router
Typesafe
Jev Router picks the best model and reasoning effort for each request, balancing quality, speed, and cost.
Perceptron Mk1.5
Perceptron
Perceptron Mk1.5 is Perceptron's embodied reasoning model for physical agents.