Claude Opus 4.6 vs Gemma 4 12B
Compare Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemma 4 12B side-by-side.
Compare Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6 vs Gemma 4 12B: Overview
Claude Opus 4.6 is the flagship large language model from Anthropic, released on 2026-02-05 for advanced reasoning, complex coding, and enterprise agent workflows. It supports text and image inputs via API, offers a 200K-token standard context window with a 1M-token beta option, and enables outputs up to 128K tokens, with adaptive reasoning and context compaction for sustained tasks.
As of 2026-02-17, Anthropic also released Claude Sonnet 4.6, extending the 1M-token context window to a broader tier. Opus remains positioned for maximum depth and benchmark performance, while Sonnet 4.6 brings long-context capability to more cost- and latency-sensitive production use cases.
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 4.6 vs Gemma 4 12B Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Opus 4.6 | Gemma 4 12B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Feb 2026 | Jun 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | — |
| Parameters | 12B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $5.00 | |
| Output $/1M | $25.00 | |
| 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 | 64.18% | 62.69% |
| Avg Response Time | 23.35s | 6.88s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.2K | |
| Median output tokens | 130 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.014 | |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | 73.3%(11/15) |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | 88.9%(8/9) |
| Object Counting | 20%(2/10) | 10%(1/10) |
| Object Understanding | 71.4%(10/14) | 78.6%(11/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 68.4%(13/19) | 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