Gemma 2 27B vs Phi-4 Mini Reasoning
Gemma 2 27B (2024) and Phi-4 Mini Reasoning (2026) are frontier reasoning models from Google DeepMind and Microsoft Research. Gemma 2 27B ships a 8k-token context window, while Phi-4 Mini Reasoning ships a 128k-token context window. On Google-Proof Q&A, Gemma 2 27B leads by 4.7 pts. This comparison covers specs, pricing, API access, capabilities, benchmarks, input and output token costs, and production fit for coding and agent workloads.
Phi-4 Mini Reasoning fits 16x more tokens; pick it for long-context work and Gemma 2 27B for tighter calls.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Gemma 2 27B | Phi-4 Mini Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Best for | provider-routed production | reasoning-heavy apps |
| Decision fit | Coding, Classification, and JSON / Tool use | Long context |
| Context window | 8k | 128k |
| Cheapest output | $0.24/1M tokens | - |
| Provider routes | 2 tracked | 0 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | Google-Proof Q&A leader | 1 shared |
Decision tradeoffs
- Gemma 2 27B holds a shared-benchmark lead on Google-Proof Q&A, ahead by 4.7 points.
- Gemma 2 27B has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- Gemma 2 27B uniquely exposes Structured outputs in local model data.
- Local decision data tags Gemma 2 27B for Coding, Classification, and JSON / Tool use.
- Phi-4 Mini Reasoning has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- Phi-4 Mini Reasoning uniquely exposes Reasoning in local model data.
- Local decision data tags Phi-4 Mini Reasoning for Long context.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.
Gemma 2 27B
$124
Cheapest tracked route/tier: Bitdeer AI
Phi-4 Mini Reasoning
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
Cost delta unavailable until both models have sourced input and output token prices.
Switch friction
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Gemma 2 27B and Phi-4 Mini Reasoning; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Check replacement coverage for Structured outputs before moving production traffic.
- Phi-4 Mini Reasoning adds Reasoning in local capability data.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Phi-4 Mini Reasoning and Gemma 2 27B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Check replacement coverage for Reasoning before moving production traffic.
- Gemma 2 27B adds Structured outputs in local capability data.
Specs
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Gemma 2 27B | Phi-4 Mini Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.08/1M tokens | - |
| Output price | $0.24/1M tokens | - |
| Providers | - |
Capabilities
| Capability | Gemma 2 27B | Phi-4 Mini Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | No | No |
| Multimodal | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Function calling | No | No |
| Tool use | No | No |
| Structured outputs | Yes | No |
| Code execution | No | No |
| IDE integration | No | No |
| Computer use | No | No |
| Parallel agents | No | No |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Phi-4 Mini Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Google-Proof Q&A | 56.7 | 52.0 |
Deep dive
On shared benchmark coverage, Google-Proof Q&A has Gemma 2 27B at 56.7 and Phi-4 Mini Reasoning at 52, with Gemma 2 27B ahead by 4.7 points. The largest visible gap is 4.7 points on Google-Proof Q&A, which matters most when that benchmark mirrors your workload. Treat isolated benchmark wins as directional, because provider routing, prompt style, and tool access can move real application results.
The capability footprint differs most on reasoning mode: Phi-4 Mini Reasoning and structured outputs: Gemma 2 27B. 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: Gemma 2 27B has $0.08/1M input tokens and Phi-4 Mini Reasoning has no token price sourced yet. Provider availability is 2 tracked routes versus 0. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.
Choose Gemma 2 27B when provider fit and broader provider choice are central to the workload. Choose Phi-4 Mini Reasoning when reasoning depth and larger context windows are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship.
FAQ
Which has a larger context window, Gemma 2 27B or Phi-4 Mini Reasoning?
Phi-4 Mini Reasoning supports 128k tokens, while Gemma 2 27B supports 8k tokens. That gap matters most for long documents, large codebases, retrieval-heavy agents, and conversations where earlier context must remain visible.
Is Gemma 2 27B or Phi-4 Mini Reasoning open source?
Gemma 2 27B is listed under Gemma. Phi-4 Mini Reasoning is listed under MIT. 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 reasoning mode, Gemma 2 27B or Phi-4 Mini Reasoning?
Phi-4 Mini Reasoning has the clearer documented reasoning mode signal in this comparison. If reasoning mode is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Which is better for structured outputs, Gemma 2 27B or Phi-4 Mini Reasoning?
Gemma 2 27B 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 Gemma 2 27B and Phi-4 Mini Reasoning?
Gemma 2 27B is available on GCP Vertex AI and Bitdeer AI. Phi-4 Mini Reasoning is available on the tracked providers still being sourced. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
When should I pick Gemma 2 27B over Phi-4 Mini Reasoning?
Phi-4 Mini Reasoning fits 16x more tokens; pick it for long-context work and Gemma 2 27B for tighter calls. If your workload also depends on provider fit, start with Gemma 2 27B; if it depends on reasoning depth, run the same evaluation with Phi-4 Mini Reasoning.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-06-15. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.