Roboflow

Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Gemma 4 31B

Compare Claude Haiku 5.5 and Gemma 4 31B side-by-side.

Compare Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Gemma 4 31B 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 Haiku 5.5 vs Gemma 4 31B on Vision Evals

Claude Haiku 5.5 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Object Detection, where Claude Haiku 5.5 leads 65.8% to 47.5%.

Overall, Claude Haiku 5.5 averages 77.2% (#20 of 61) against 67.0% (#38 of 61) for Gemma 4 31B.

Claude Haiku 5.5 is both cheaper ($0.0005 vs $0.0015 per sample) and faster (13.2s vs 34.4s per sample).

Claude Haiku 5.5Gemma 4 31B

Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Gemma 4 31B Comparison Table

Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 8, 2026

PropertyClaude Haiku 5.5Gemma 4 31B
OrganizationAnthropicGoogle
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateOct 2026Apr 2026
Context Window1.0M256K
Parametersundisclosed31B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.100$0.090
Output $/1M$0.500$0.340
Vision Tasks
CaptioningSupportedDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationSupportedDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Image TaggingSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionSupportedDemo
OCRSupportedDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringSupportedDemo
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
77.2%
67.0%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1666.9%FP867.0%QAT-W4A1667.0%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0005$0.0015
Avg speed / sample13.23s34.36s
By task
Object Detection (low)
65.8%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.1 to 66.2
$0.0006
47.5%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 46.8 to 48.0
$0
Object Detection (high)
68.2%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.2 to 69.2
$0.0010
–
Counting (low)
68.9%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 74.3
$0.0003
51.4%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.6 to 54.0
$0
Counting (high)
73.0%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.6 to 74.3
$0.0004
–
Identification (low)
83.3%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 87.5
$0.0002
79.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$0
Identification (high)
86.5%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 87.5
$0.0003
–
OCR (low)
90.1%
±1.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 88.8 to 91.0
$0.0006
90.8%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.2 to 91.5
$0
OCR (high)
88.0%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.0 to 89.6
$0.0009
–
Data Extraction (low)
85.9%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.5 to 87.6
$0.0002
80.4%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4
$0
Data Extraction (high)
87.3%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.6 to 87.6
$0.0002
–
Reasoning (low)
68.9%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.9 to 70.9
$0.0004
52.8%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 51.7 to 54.3
$0
Reasoning (high)
74.8%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 72.2 to 77.5
$0.0006
–

Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Gemma 4 31B: Overview

Claude Haiku 5.5

Claude Haiku 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal language model from Anthropic and the smallest member of the Claude 5.5 family, released on October 7, 2026 after Claude Opus 5.5 and Claude Sonnet 5.5. It accepts text and image input and returns text, with a 1M token context window and up to 128K output tokens per request. It is the first Haiku-class model with an adjustable effort parameter: adaptive thinking is on by default and the model decides how much to reason, steered by effort levels from low to max with medium as the default. Its training data cutoff is June 2026. Pricing starts at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens for prompts up to 100K tokens, which Anthropic reports is about 90% lower than Claude Haiku 4.5 for requests in that range.

Anthropic positions Haiku 5.5 for high-volume, latency-sensitive work such as classification, extraction, routing, summarization, and subagent tasks, and describes it as its fastest model to date at standard speed. On visual and agentic evaluations reported at launch, it scores 46.4% on Chartography, a chart reading benchmark, compared with 6.4% for Haiku 4.5 and 61.6% for Sonnet 5.5, and 72.4% on the offline subset of OSWorld 2.1, a screenshot driven computer use benchmark, compared with 15.7% for Haiku 4.5. It uses the same tokenizer as Claude Opus 4.7 and later models, so the same text counts as roughly 30% more tokens than on Haiku 4.5.

Gemma 4 31B

Gemma 4 31B is the largest dense model in Google's Gemma 4 family, built from the same research as Gemini 3 and released as open weights under the Apache 2.0 license. It supports a 256K token context window with text and image input, configurable thinking mode for step-by-step reasoning, and multilingual support across 140+ languages. The unquantized model fits on a single 80GB GPU.

For vision tasks, Gemma 4 31B supports image understanding with variable aspect ratios and resolutions, and can output structured bounding boxes for UI element detection, making it useful for document parsing and UI understanding. Compared to Gemma 3, it delivers stronger reasoning and multimodal performance. It is part of a four-size family alongside the 26B A4B MoE variant and two on-device models (E2B, E4B), with the 31B dense variant optimized for output quality and fine-tuning over inference speed.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Haiku 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 77.2% (#20 of 61) against 67.0% (#38 of 61) for Gemma 4 31B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, Claude Haiku 5.5 leads with 65.8% against 47.5%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0005 per sample against $0.0015. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Claude Haiku 5.5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 13.2s per inference against 34.4s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.