Roboflow

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B

Compare Claude Opus 4.8 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 4.8 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 4.8
Run to compare this model.
GoogleGemma 4 26B A4B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B on Vision Evals

Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Data Extraction, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 88.7% to 76.6%.

Overall, Claude Opus 4.8 averages 68.7% (#31 of 59) against 63.6% (#46 of 59) for Gemma 4 26B A4B.

Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper ($0.0019 vs $0.016 per sample), while Claude Opus 4.8 is faster (5.2s vs 27.8s per sample).

Claude Opus 4.8Gemma 4 26B A4B

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B Comparison Table

Evals updated September 22, 2026Pricing updated September 23, 2026

PropertyClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 4 26B A4B
OrganizationAnthropicGoogle
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateMay 2026Apr 2026
Context Window1.0M256K
Parameters25.2B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$5.00$0.090
Output $/1M$25.00$0.300
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
68.7%
63.6%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1661.9%FP863.6%AWQ-INT461.6%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.016$0.0019
Avg speed / sample5.20s27.84s
By task
Object Detection
38.6%
$0.026
44.2%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 43.5 to 44.8
$0
Counting
54.0%
$0.0076
43.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 46.0
$0
Identification
84.4%
$0.0067
81.3%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 84.4
$0
OCR
93.8%
$0.020
88.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 90.2
$0
Data Extraction
88.7%
$0.0076
76.6%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.3 to 77.3
$0
Reasoning (low)
53.0%
$0.0078
47.7%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.0 to 49.0
$0
Reasoning (high)
52.3%
$0.0078

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B: Overview

Claude Opus 4.8

Claude Opus 4.8 is Anthropic's most capable generally available large language model, released on May 28, 2026 as an incremental upgrade to Claude Opus 4.7. The model accepts text and image inputs and produces text outputs, with a 1 million token context window on the Claude API, Amazon Bedrock, and Google Cloud Vertex AI (200k tokens on Microsoft Foundry) and up to 128k max output tokens. It uses adaptive thinking and supports adjustable effort tiers — high by default, with extra and max tiers available for more demanding tasks. A fast mode operates at approximately 2.5x standard speed. The model is described by Anthropic as a hybrid reasoning model designed for advanced coding, agentic workflows, long-context reasoning, and professional knowledge work.

Key behavioral improvements over Opus 4.7 include substantially reduced rates of unreported code flaws, improved honesty in self-assessment, and better tool-calling reliability. On Anthropic's Super-Agent benchmark, Opus 4.8 completes every case end-to-end, and it scores 84% on Online-Mind2Web for computer-use and browser-agent tasks. It achieves 88.6% on SWE-bench Verified and 69.2% on SWE-bench Pro. Alongside the model, Anthropic launched Dynamic Workflows in Claude Code (research preview), which enables Claude to orchestrate hundreds of parallel subagents for codebase-scale tasks such as large migrations. The Messages API was also updated to accept mid-task system messages without breaking prompt caching, improving support for long-running agentic pipelines.

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.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Opus 4.8 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 68.7% (#31 of 59) against 63.6% (#46 of 59) for Gemma 4 26B A4B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Data Extraction benchmark at low effort, Claude Opus 4.8 leads with 88.7% against 76.6%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0019 per sample against $0.016. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Claude Opus 4.8 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 5.2s per inference against 27.8s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and image classification in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.