Gemma 2 27B vs dm K 3.0 Pro: which should you choose in 2026?
Gemma 2 27B (by Google) and dm K 3.0 Pro (by Kt) 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.
dm K 3.0 Pro is about 1.9× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.35 vs $0.65 per 1M tokens).
dm K 3.0 Pro has the larger context window (261,795 tokens vs 8,192 tokens).
Choose Gemma 2 27B if…
- • your own prompt tests favor its output; shared comparable evidence does not identify a unique advantage
Choose dm K 3.0 Pro if…
- • lower blended API cost matters for your workload
- • you work with longer documents, transcripts, or codebases
- • you need a model with explicit reasoning support
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 | Gemma 2 27B | dm K 3.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
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 5, 2026.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | Gemma 2 27B | dm K 3.0 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | Kt | |
| API provider | KT | |
| Input context | 8,192 tokens | 261,795 tokens |
| Maximum output | 2,048 tokens | 235,615 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Jul 13, 2024 | Nov 5, 2026 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2024-06-30 | — |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text | Text |
| Outputs | Text | Text |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Vision | No | No |
| Image Generation | No | No |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API pricing | ||
| Input (per 1M tokens) | $0.65 | $0.20 |
| Output (per 1M tokens) | $0.65 | $0.80 |
| Blended 3:1 input/output | $0.65 | $0.35 |
| 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 Nov 5, 2026.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing Gemma 2 27B from Google with dm K 3.0 Pro from Kt? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | Gemma 2 27B | dm K 3.0 Pro | 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 |
Gemma 2 27B vs dm K 3.0 Pro FAQ
Which is better, Gemma 2 27B or dm K 3.0 Pro?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. dm K 3.0 Pro is about 1.9× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.35 vs $0.65 per 1M tokens). dm K 3.0 Pro has the larger context window (261,795 tokens vs 8,192 tokens).
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
dm K 3.0 Pro is about 1.9× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.35 vs $0.65 per 1M tokens).
Which model supports more context?
dm K 3.0 Pro has the larger context window (261,795 tokens vs 8,192 tokens).
Can I switch between Gemma 2 27B and dm K 3.0 Pro?
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 Gemma 2 27B comparisons
ERNIE-Light-DT-1.0
Baidu
ERNIE-Light-DT-1.0 is based on open-source GLM models and includes research findings from Baidu Search's Lightning large model.
Nex-N2.6
Nex AGI
Nex-N2.6 is an agentic model from Nex AGI, built on GLM-5.3-Flash with about 321B parameters.
Inkling 2 Small
Thinking Machines
Inkling 2 Small is an open-weight multimodal mixture-of-experts reasoning model from Thinking Machines Lab, with 17B active parameters out of 594B total.
LFM3-1.7B
Liquid AI
A compact 1.7B-parameter text model with a 256K-token context, post-trained for agents, tool calling, and structured outputs.
Ripple 65B Preview
Ricursiveai
Ripple-65B-Preview by ricursiveAI, a 65B model with native tool calling, served in BF16.
More dm K 3.0 Pro comparisons
Gemini 4 Hydrogen
Gemini 4 Hydrogen is a model by Google.
ERNIE-Light-DT-1.0
Baidu
ERNIE-Light-DT-1.0 is based on open-source GLM models and includes research findings from Baidu Search's Lightning large model.
Gemini 4 Carbon
Gemini 4 Carbon is a frontier Gemini 4 model from Google for coding, agentic and complex reasoning work.
Nex-N2.6
Nex AGI
Nex-N2.6 is an agentic model from Nex AGI, built on GLM-5.3-Flash with about 321B parameters.
Inkling 2 Small
Thinking Machines
Inkling 2 Small is an open-weight multimodal mixture-of-experts reasoning model from Thinking Machines Lab, with 17B active parameters out of 594B total.