Head to head
Mistral Small 3.2 24B vs Gemma 3 27B
Mistral Small 3.2 24B from Mistral AI against Gemma 3 27B from Google DeepMind — specification, price and every benchmark both makers have published, in one table.
Benchmarks
Mistral Small 3.2 24B leads
Mistral Small 3.2 24B wins 3 of the 3 benchmarks both models report, Gemma 3 27B wins 0, consistently. The average gap across shared tests is 3.5 points.
Price
Gemma 3 27B is cheaper
On a 3:1 input-to-output mix, Gemma 3 27B costs $0.125 per million tokens against $0.150 for Mistral Small 3.2 24B — about 1.2× less.
What actually differs
- These two are closely matched on the specification side — same broad capabilities, same licensing posture. The decision comes down to the benchmark rows and the price.
Scorecard
Which is better at what
Maths, coding, reasoning and the rest — one line each, averaged over the benchmarks both models actually report.
| Category | Mistral Small 3.2 24B | Gemma 3 27B | Better at this |
|---|---|---|---|
| ReasoningGPQA Diamond | 46.1% | 42.4% | Mistral Small 3.2 24B+3.7 |
| MathsNeither model reports this | — | — | Not comparable |
| CodingHumanEval | 92.9% | 87.8% | Mistral Small 3.2 24B+5.1 |
| KnowledgeMMLU-Pro | 69.1% | 67.5% | Mistral Small 3.2 24B+1.6 |
| MultimodalOnly one model reports this | — | — | Not comparable |
| Instruction followingOnly one model reports this | — | — | Not comparable |
| Human preferenceOnly one model reports this | — | — | Not comparable |
| Categories wonOut of 3 comparable | 3 | 0 | Mistral Small 3.2 24B |
Each category averages only the benchmarks every model here reports, so no one is credited for a test the other did not run. A category with no shared test is marked Not comparable rather than guessed at.
Side by side
Mistral Small 3.2 24B and Gemma 3 27B, row by row
| Attribute | Mistral Small 3.2 24BMistral AI | Gemma 3 27BGoogle DeepMind |
|---|---|---|
| Specification | ||
| MakerWho built it | Mistral AI | Google DeepMind |
| Released | 2025-06 | 2025-03 |
| ParametersTotal, and active per token for a mixture of experts | 24B | 27B |
| Architecture | Dense transformer | Dense transformer |
| Context windowHow much can go in at once | 131,072 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 8,192 tokens |
| Input | Text, Image | Text, Image |
| ReasoningSpends extra tokens thinking before it answers | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Licence | Apache 2.0 | Gemma Terms of Use |
| Open weightsCan you download and run it yourself | Yes | Yes |
| Price | ||
| Input priceUSD per million tokens in | $0.10 | $0.10 |
| Output priceUSD per million tokens out | $0.30 | $0.20 |
| Blended 3:1A 3-in-to-1-out million-token mix — a fairer single number than input price alone | $0.150 | $0.125Cheapest |
| Price note | Open weights — this is a representative hosting rate, not a first-party price. Running it yourself costs only hardware. | Open weights — this is a representative hosting rate, not a first-party price. Running it yourself costs only hardware. |
| Published benchmarks | ||
| MMLU-Pro12,000 reasoning-heavy multiple-choice questions across 14 academic subjects, with ten options instead of four. The harder successor to MMLU. | ||
| GPQA Diamond198 graduate-level physics, chemistry and biology questions written to be Google-proof. PhD holders in the matching field score about 65%. | ||
| HumanEval164 short Python functions written from a docstring. Saturated at the frontier — kept here for continuity with older models. | ||
| MMMUCollege-level questions that require reading charts, diagrams, tables and photographs alongside the text. | Not reported | |
| IFEvalVerifiable instructions — word counts, formats, forbidden words — checked by a program rather than a judge model. | Not reported | |
| LMArena EloElo rating from blind pairwise votes by the public on LMArena. Measures what people prefer, not what is correct. | Not reported | |
| Links | Hugging Face · Full page | Hugging Face · Full page |
| Row verified | 2026-08 | 2026-08 |
Where these numbers come from
Every score on this page is a published figure, taken from the model's own card, system card, technical report or release post, or from a public leaderboard. CorX Labs did not run these evaluations. Most are self-reported by the lab that built the model, which means they were produced under that lab's own choice of prompt, scaffold and number of attempts — so treat them as a starting point for a shortlist, not as a settled ranking.
A score someone other than the model's maker measured is marked Independent and names its measurer. Those are the stronger numbers on this page — an outside harness has no reason to flatter anyone — and there are not many of them.
Where a figure has not been published, the cell reads Not reported rather than an estimate. Nothing here is inferred, interpolated or guessed. Each model records the month its row was last checked. Full method and caveats.
Questions
Mistral Small 3.2 24B or Gemma 3 27B?
Is Mistral Small 3.2 24B better than Gemma 3 27B?
Mistral Small 3.2 24B wins 3 of the 3 benchmarks both models report, Gemma 3 27B wins 0, consistently. The average gap across shared tests is 3.5 points.
Which is cheaper, Mistral Small 3.2 24B or Gemma 3 27B?
On a 3:1 input-to-output mix, Gemma 3 27B costs $0.125 per million tokens against $0.150 for Mistral Small 3.2 24B — about 1.2× less.
What is the difference between Mistral Small 3.2 24B and Gemma 3 27B?
These two are closely matched on the specification side — same broad capabilities, same licensing posture. The decision comes down to the benchmark rows and the price.
