Roboflow

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B

Compare Claude Opus 5.5 and Gemma 4 26B A4B side-by-side.

Compare Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B 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 5.5 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B on Vision Evals

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

The widest gap is Counting, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 80.6% to 43.2%.

Overall, Claude Opus 5.5 averages 85.5% (#3 of 57) against 63.6% (#46 of 57) for Gemma 4 26B A4B.

Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper ($0.0019 vs $0.014 per sample), while Claude Opus 5.5 is faster (12.8s vs 27.8s per sample).

Claude Opus 5.5Gemma 4 26B A4B

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B Comparison Table

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

PropertyClaude Opus 5.5Gemma 4 26B A4B
OrganizationAnthropicGoogle
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateSep 2026Apr 2026
Context Window1.0M256K
Parameters25.2B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.090
Output $/1M$0.300
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemo
OCRDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
85.5%
63.6%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1661.8%FP863.6%AWQ-INT460.0%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.014$0.0019
Avg speed / sample12.76s27.84s
By task
Object Detection (low)
74.4%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.9 to 74.8
$0.022
44.2%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 43.5 to 44.8
$0
Object Detection (high)
76.8%
±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.4 to 77.8
$0.030
Counting (low)
80.6%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 82.4
$0.0081
43.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 46.0
$0
Counting (high)
82.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.7 to 83.8
$0.0098
Identification (low)
93.8%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 93.8
$0.0058
81.3%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 84.4
$0
Identification (high)
95.8%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 96.9
$0.0067
OCR (low)
87.8%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.0 to 88.2
$0.017
88.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 90.2
$0
OCR (high)
87.2%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.5 to 87.8
$0.024
Data Extraction (low)
93.5%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8
$0.0066
76.6%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.3 to 77.3
$0
Data Extraction (high)
93.5%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8
$0.0075
Reasoning (low)
83.0%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 84.1
$0.0090
47.7%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.0 to 49.0
$0
Reasoning (high)
85.9%
±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.8 to 88.1
$0.011

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B: Overview

Claude Opus 5.5

Claude Opus 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal reasoning model from Anthropic and the first entry in the Claude 5.5 family. It accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, with a one million token context window and up to 128,000 output tokens per response. Adaptive thinking is always enabled on this model and cannot be disabled; thinking depth is instead governed by an effort parameter with five levels, where medium is the default, a change from the high default used by Claude Opus 5 and earlier Opus models. Anthropic reports a knowledge cutoff of June 2026.

On the visual side, Anthropic characterizes Opus 5.5 as its strongest Opus release for vision and computer use, describing improved reading of dense documents, charts, screenshots, and diagrams for document extraction and visual analysis tasks. Published results include 89.0% on Chartography with tools and 81.8% on OSWorld 2.0 under partial credit scoring, alongside 48.7% under strict scoring reported in the system card. The accompanying system card states that Opus 5.5 scored higher than Opus 5 on every evaluation in its capability summary, with the largest gains concentrated in agentic coding, visual reasoning, computer use, and long-horizon knowledge work. The model ships with safety classifiers covering biology and cybersecurity that can route blocked requests to earlier Claude models.

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 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 85.5% (#3 of 57) against 63.6% (#46 of 57) 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 Counting benchmark at low effort, Claude Opus 5.5 leads with 80.6% against 43.2%. 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 $0.014. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Claude Opus 5.5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 12.8s per inference against 27.8s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.