Code Cushman 002 vs Gemma 3
Code Cushman 002 (2021) and Gemma 3 (2025) compare a coding-specialized model against a standalone API model. Code Cushman 002 ships a not-yet-sourced context window, while Gemma 3 ships a not-yet-sourced context window. This page treats the result as workflow and deployment fit, not a universal model winner.
Treat this as a product-type comparison: Code Cushman 002 is coding-specialized model, while Gemma 3 is standalone API model. Choose based on workflow fit before reading any benchmark or price row as decisive.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Code Cushman 002 | Gemma 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Product type | Coding-specialized model | Standalone API model |
| Best for | custom coding agents and code generation | provider-routed production |
| Decision fit | Coding | Classification and JSON / Tool use |
| Context window | — | — |
| Cheapest output | - | $0.08/1M tokens |
| Provider routes | 0 tracked | 3 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 0 rows | 0 rows |
Decision tradeoffs
- Local decision data tags Code Cushman 002 for Coding.
- Gemma 3 has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- Gemma 3 uniquely exposes Structured outputs in local model data.
- Local decision data tags Gemma 3 for Classification and JSON / Tool use.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.
Code Cushman 002
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
Gemma 3
$52.00
Cheapest tracked route/tier: OpenRouter
Cost delta unavailable until both models have sourced input and output token prices.
Switch friction
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Code Cushman 002 and Gemma 3; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Gemma 3 adds Structured outputs in local capability data.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Gemma 3 and Code Cushman 002; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Check replacement coverage for Structured outputs before moving production traffic.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2021-11-15 | 2025-03-12 |
| Context window | — | — |
| Parameters | — | — |
| Architecture | decoder only | decoder only |
| License | Proprietary | Gemma |
| Openness | Proprietary | Open weights |
| Commercial use | Commercial use with conditions | Commercial use with conditions |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | 2025-01 |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Code Cushman 002 | Gemma 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | - | $0.04/1M tokens |
| Output price | - | $0.08/1M tokens |
| Providers | - |
Capabilities
| Capability | Code Cushman 002 | Gemma 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | No | No |
| Multimodal | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Function calling | No | No |
| Tool use | No | No |
| Structured outputs | No | Yes |
| Code execution | No | No |
| IDE integration | No | No |
| Computer use | No | No |
| Parallel agents | No | No |
Benchmarks
No shared benchmark rows are currently sourced for this pair.
Deep dive
The capability footprint differs most on structured outputs: Gemma 3. Both models share the core language-model surface, so the practical split is not just feature count. Use those differences to decide whether the page is about raw model quality, agentic coding support, multimodal ingestion, or predictable structured API behavior.
Pricing coverage is uneven: Code Cushman 002 has no token price sourced yet and Gemma 3 has $0.04/1M input tokens. Provider availability is 0 tracked routes versus 3. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.
Choose Code Cushman 002 when coding workflow support are central to the workload. Choose Gemma 3 when provider fit and broader provider choice are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship. This keeps the decision grounded in measurable tradeoffs instead of brand-level assumptions. It also helps separate model capability from provider packaging, which can change cost and latency. For teams standardizing a stack, that distinction is often the difference between a benchmark win and a reliable deployment.
FAQ
Is Code Cushman 002 or Gemma 3 open source?
Code Cushman 002 is listed under Proprietary. Gemma 3 is listed under Gemma. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.
Which is better for structured outputs, Code Cushman 002 or Gemma 3?
Gemma 3 has the clearer documented structured outputs signal in this comparison. If structured outputs is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Where can I run Code Cushman 002 and Gemma 3?
Code Cushman 002 is available on the tracked providers still being sourced. Gemma 3 is available on OpenRouter, Google AI Studio, and GCP Vertex AI. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
When should I pick Code Cushman 002 over Gemma 3?
Treat this as a product-type comparison: Code Cushman 002 is coding-specialized model, while Gemma 3 is standalone API model. Choose based on workflow fit before reading any benchmark or price row as decisive. If your workload also depends on coding workflow support, start with Code Cushman 002; if it depends on provider fit, run the same evaluation with Gemma 3.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-05-11. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.