Price Per TokenPrice Per Token
Google
Google
vs
Minimax
Minimax

Gemma 3 27B vs MiniMax M2.7

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

Gemma 3 27B wins:

  • Cheaper input tokens
  • Cheaper output tokens
  • Better at math
  • Supports vision

MiniMax M2.7 wins:

  • Larger context window
  • Faster response time
  • Higher intelligence benchmark
  • Better at coding
Price Advantage
Gemma 3 27B
Benchmark Advantage
MiniMax M2.7
Context Window
MiniMax M2.7
Speed
MiniMax M2.7

Pricing Comparison

Benchmark Comparison

Context & Performance

Capabilities

Feature Comparison

FeatureGemma 3 27BMiniMax M2.7
Vision (Image Input)
Tool/Function Calls
Reasoning Mode
Audio Input
Audio Output
PDF Input
Prompt Caching
Web Search

License & Release

PropertyGemma 3 27BMiniMax M2.7
LicenseOpen SourceProprietary
AuthorGoogleMinimax
ReleasedMar 2025Mar 2026

Gemma 3 27B Modalities

Input
textimage
Output
text

MiniMax M2.7 Modalities

Input
text
Output
text

Related Comparisons

Compare Gemma 3 27B with:

Compare MiniMax M2.7 with:

Frequently Asked Questions

Gemma 3 27B has cheaper input pricing at $0.08/M tokens. Gemma 3 27B has cheaper output pricing at $0.16/M tokens.
MiniMax M2.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks with a score of 41.9, compared to Gemma 3 27B's score of 9.6.
Gemma 3 27B has a 128,000 token context window, while MiniMax M2.7 has a 204,800 token context window.
Gemma 3 27B supports vision. MiniMax M2.7 does not support vision.