Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B

Compare Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemma 4 26B A4B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Classification, OCR, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.

Compare Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
AnthropicClaude Opus 4.7
Run to compare this model.
GoogleGemma 4 26B A4B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B: Overview

Claude Opus 4.7

Claude Opus 4.7 is a proprietary multimodal language model developed by Anthropic, released on April 16, 2026. It is designed for agentic coding, long-horizon task execution, and enterprise knowledge work. The model supports text and vision inputs and operates with a context window of up to 1,000,000 tokens. It introduces adaptive thinking, which dynamically allocates reasoning based on task complexity, along with configurable effort controls including a new xhigh setting that sits between the existing high and max levels. It achieves 87.6% on SWE-bench Verified and 78.0% on OSWorld-Verified, reflecting strong performance on autonomous software engineering and computer use tasks respectively.

Compared to Claude Opus 4.6, version 4.7 shows improved instruction following and higher reliability in extended agentic tasks. Vision capabilities now support high-resolution inputs up to 2,576px on the long edge (~3.75 megapixels), more than three times the resolution of prior Claude models, enabling finer interpretation of dense diagrams, UI screenshots, and document layouts. These improvements, combined with self-verification on long-running tasks and a new task budget system for controlling agentic loops, make it well-suited for complex software engineering, technical analysis, and multimodal vision workflows.

Gemma 4 26B A4B

Gemma 4 26B A4B is the Mixture-of-Experts variant in Google's Gemma 4 family, with 25.2B total parameters but only 3.8B active per token. Built from the same Gemini 3 research as the 31B dense sibling and released as open weights under the Apache 2.0 license, it supports a 256K token context window with text and image input and configurable thinking mode. The "A4B" in the name refers to its approximately 4B active parameters. The MoE design makes it significantly faster at inference than the dense 31B, running nearly as fast as a 4B-parameter model while delivering roughly 97% of the dense model's quality.

For vision tasks, the 26B A4B shares the same multimodal capabilities as the 31B image understanding with variable aspect ratios and resolutions, and structured bounding box output for UI element detection. The tradeoff versus the 31B dense model is a small quality reduction in exchange for much faster inference and lower hardware requirements, fitting in 18GB of VRAM at 4-bit quantization. It ranked #6 among open models on the Arena AI text leaderboard at launch.

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B Comparison Table

PropertyClaude Opus 4.7Gemma 4 26B A4B
OrganizationAnthropicGoogle
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateApr 2026Apr 2026
Context Window1.0M256K
Parameters25.2B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$5.00$0.060
Output $/1M$25.00$0.330
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
ClassificationDemoDemo
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Multimodal Vision
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts
Score key:≥75%40–74%<40%
Overall Score
67.16%
68.66%
Avg Response Time4.85s30.23s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens2.4K294
Median output tokens110214
Est. cost / taskon this benchmark$0.015$0.0001
Defect Detection
73.3%(11/15)
80%(12/15)
Document Understanding
77.8%(7/9)
88.9%(8/9)
Object Counting
20%(2/10)
10%(1/10)
Object Understanding
85.7%(12/14)
85.7%(12/14)
Spatial Understanding
68.4%(13/19)
68.4%(13/19)

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