Claude Opus 4.1 vs Gemma 4 12B
Compare Claude Opus 4.1 and Gemma 4 12B side-by-side.
Compare Claude Opus 4.1 vs Gemma 4 12B live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Models in this comparison
Claude Opus 4.1 vs Gemma 4 12B: Overview
Claude 4.1 Opus, released by Anthropic in August 2025, is the upgraded flagship of the Claude 4 family, building on Opus 4 with stronger reasoning and agentic capabilities. Like its predecessor, it is multimodal and optimized for text, code, and tool use, with support for large context windows suited to multi-file codebases, technical workflows, and long-horizon problem solving.
On benchmarks, Opus 4.1 improves coding performance, reaching ~74.5% on SWE-Bench Verified compared to Opus 4’s ~72.5%. It demonstrates more precise debugging, refactoring, and orchestration of agentic tasks while maintaining similar safety and alignment safeguards. It is best suited for enterprise-scale software development, research automation, and advanced reasoning workflows where reliability and depth of analysis are critical.
Gemma 4 12B is an open-weight multimodal model from Google in the Gemma 4 family. It is intended for text and image understanding tasks such as visual question answering, OCR, captioning, and document understanding, with a smaller parameter footprint than the larger Gemma 4 variants.
This entry is connected to Roboflow Playground vision evals for comparison. No runnable Playground workflow is configured yet, so the model page is used for discovery and benchmark context rather than direct hosted inference.
Claude Opus 4.1 vs Gemma 4 12B Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Opus 4.1 | Gemma 4 12B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2025 | Jun 2026 |
| Context Window | 200K | — |
| Parameters | 12B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $15.00 | |
| Output $/1M | $75.00 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 59.7% | 62.69% |
| Avg Response Time | 7.09s | 6.88s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.0K | |
| Median output tokens | 140 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.040 | |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | 73.3%(11/15) |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | 88.9%(8/9) |
| Object Counting | 0%(0/10) | 10%(1/10) |
| Object Understanding | 64.3%(9/14) | 78.6%(11/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 63.2%(12/19) | 57.9%(11/19) |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology