Roboflow

Claude Opus 5 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B

Compare Claude Opus 5 and Gemma 4 26B A4B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Open Prompt, Object Detection, and Classification.

Compare Claude Opus 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.

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

Open Object Detection in the full playground
AnthropicClaude Opus 5
Run to compare this model.
GoogleGemma 4 26B A4B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Anthropic

Claude Opus 5 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B on Vision Evals

Claude Opus 5 scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Counting, where Claude Opus 5 leads 70.3% to 43.2%.

Overall, Claude Opus 5 averages 78.3% (#14 of 53) against 63.6% (#42 of 53) for Gemma 4 26B A4B.

Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper ($0.0019 vs $0.017 per sample), while Claude Opus 5 is faster (7.4s vs 27.8s per sample).

Claude Opus 5Gemma 4 26B A4B

Claude Opus 5 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B Comparison Table

Evals updated September 5, 2026Pricing updated September 8, 2026

PropertyClaude Opus 5Gemma 4 26B A4B
OrganizationAnthropicGoogle
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Apr 2026
Context Window1.0M256K
Parameters25.2B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$5.00$0.070
Output $/1M$25.00$0.340
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Image Tagging
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
78.3%
63.6%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1661.8%FP863.6%AWQ-INT460.0%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.017$0.0019
Avg speed / sample7.38s27.84s
By task
Object Detection
54.4%
$0.027
44.2%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 43.5 to 44.8
$0
Counting
70.3%
$0.0096
43.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 46.0
$0
Identification
90.6%
$0.0072
81.3%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 84.4
$0
OCR
93.2%
$0.020
88.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 90.2
$0
Data Extraction
89.7%
$0.0080
76.6%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.3 to 77.3
$0
Reasoning (low)
71.5%
$0.010
47.7%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.0 to 49.0
$0
Reasoning (high)
74.2%
$0.018

Claude Opus 5 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B: Overview

Claude Opus 5

Claude Opus 5 is a large language model with multimodal vision capabilities developed by Anthropic, released on July 24, 2026 as the fourth model in the Claude 5 family. It sits in the Opus tier of Anthropic's lineup, positioned below the Mythos-class Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models, and is framed by Anthropic as the go-to model for most knowledge work and automation tasks. The model approaches Fable 5's capabilities at roughly half the cost, priced at $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens. It becomes the default model on Claude Max and the strongest model available on Claude Pro. The model ships with a 1 million token context window and an adjustable "effort" parameter that allows users to trade reasoning depth for speed and token savings. Early enterprise customers reported that Opus 5 achieved comparable performance to Opus 4.8's maximum-reasoning mode while generating significantly fewer tokens on average, and demonstrated higher accuracy on financial modeling tasks with fewer tool calls and less time.

Claude Opus 5 supports multimodal inputs including images and text, and is designed for agentic workflows, coding, scientific research, and complex enterprise tasks. Anthropic reports the model scores 10.2 percentage points higher than Opus 4.8 on an internal chemistry benchmark, making it the most capable generally available model for scientific research in the Claude lineup. Cyber classifiers on Opus 5 are designed to intervene approximately 85 percent less often than those on Fable 5, with fallback to Opus 4.8 when a classifier triggers. The model does not retain user data for 30 days, unlike Fable 5. It is available across Anthropic's platforms including Claude Code and Claude Cowork, as well as cloud partners.

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 performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 78.3% (#14 of 53) against 63.6% (#42 of 53) 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 leads with 70.3% 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 $0.017. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Claude Opus 5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.4s 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 OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.