Side-by-side comparison
Weaver (alpha) vs Gemma 2 27B
| Weaver (alpha) | Gemma 2 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Mancer | |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 8,000 | 8,192 |
| Capabilities Optional capabilities the model advertises: vision (images), tools (function calling), json_mode (structured output). | json_mode | json_mode |
| Input $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens you send (prompt + context). Cheaper side highlighted. Glossary → | 0.7500 | 0.6500 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 1.0000 | 0.6500 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, Weaver (alpha) or Gemma 2 27B?
Gemma 2 27B is cheaper than Weaver (alpha) on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.225 per 1M tokens. Exact savings depend on your input-vs-output ratio — use the cost calculator on this page for a workload-specific estimate.
Which has a larger context window, Weaver (alpha) or Gemma 2 27B?
Gemma 2 27B has the larger context window at 8k tokens versus 8k tokens for Weaver (alpha). That means Gemma 2 27B can ingest about 1.0x as much text per request.
What is the difference between Weaver (alpha) and Gemma 2 27B?
Weaver (alpha) comes from Mancer; Gemma 2 27B comes from Google. They differ in pricing, context window, and supported capabilities — see the side-by-side table on this page for the exact figures, refreshed nightly.