Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Google
Google
vs
Google
Google

Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana) vs Gemma 2 27B

A detailed comparison of pricing, benchmarks, and capabilities

Get our weekly newsletter on pricing changes, new releases, and tools.

OpenClaw

Deploy OpenClaw in Under 1 Minute We handle hosting, scaling, and maintenance

Key Takeaways

Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana) wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Larger context window

Gemma 2 27B wins:

  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
Price Advantage
Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana)
Benchmark Advantage
Gemma 2 27B
Context Window
Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana)
Speed
N/A

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureGemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana)Gemma 2 27B
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyGemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana)Gemma 2 27B
LicenseProprietaryOpen Source
AuthorGoogleGoogle
ReleasedOct 2025Jul 2024

Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana) Modalities

Input
imagetext
Output
imagetext

Gemma 2 27B Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana) with:

Compare Gemma 2 27B with:

Frequently Asked Questions

Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana) has cheaper input pricing at $0.30/M tokens. Gemma 2 27B has cheaper output pricing at $0.65/M tokens.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana) scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of N/A, compared to Gemma 2 27B's score of N/A.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana) has a 32,768 token context window, while Gemma 2 27B has a 8,192 token context window.
Gemini 2.5 Flash Image (Nano Banana) supports vision. Gemma 2 27B supports vision.