Roboflow

Claude Opus 5 vs Gemma 4 31B

Compare Claude Opus 5 and Gemma 4 31B 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 31B 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 31B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

Anthropic

Claude Opus 5 vs Gemma 4 31B on Vision Evals

Claude Opus 5 scores higher on all 4 Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Counting, where Claude Opus 5 leads 70.3% to 51.4%.

Overall, Claude Opus 5 averages 70.9% (#20 of 63) against 57.7% (#39 of 63) for Gemma 4 31B.

Gemma 4 31B is cheaper ($0.0015 vs $0.020 per sample), while Claude Opus 5 is faster (8.2s vs 34.4s per sample).

Claude Opus 5Gemma 4 31B

Claude Opus 5 vs Gemma 4 31B Comparison Table

Evals updated October 13, 2026Pricing updated October 23, 2026

PropertyClaude Opus 5Gemma 4 31B
OrganizationAnthropicGoogle
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateJul 2026Apr 2026
Context Window1.0M256K
ParametersUnknown31B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termsfree for commercial use
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$5.00$0.200
Output $/1M$25.00$0.400
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question AnsweringSupportedSupported
Multi-Label ClassificationSupportedSupported
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision LanguageSupportedSupported
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
Image TaggingNot listedSupported
Model Features
Foundation VisionSupportedSupported
LLMs with Vision CapabilitiesSupportedSupported
Multimodal VisionSupportedSupported
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
70.9%
57.7%
4/5 tasks
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1657.7%FP857.7%QAT-W4A1657.6%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.020$0.0015
Avg speed / sample8.21s34.36s
By task
Object Detection
54.4%
$0.027
47.5%
±0.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 46.8 to 48.0
$0
Counting
70.3%
$0.0096
51.4%
±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 48.6 to 54.0
$0
Identification
90.6%
$0.0072
79.2%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3
$0
OCR (low)
68.0%
$0.022
–
by category
Single value
56.1%
Transcription
92.7%
Structured JSON
85.2%
Text localization
40.5%
OCR (high)
65.8%
$0.043
–
by category
Single value
47.8%
Transcription
85.2%
Structured JSON
88.7%
Text localization
42.6%
Reasoning (low)
71.5%
$0.010
52.8%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 51.7 to 54.3
$0
Reasoning (high)
74.2%
$0.018
–

Claude Opus 5 vs Gemma 4 31B: 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 a lower cost. 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 31B

Gemma 4 31B is the largest dense model in Google's Gemma 4 family, built from the same research as Gemini 3 and released as open weights under the Apache 2.0 license. It supports a 256K token context window with text and image input, configurable thinking mode for step-by-step reasoning, and multilingual support across 140+ languages. The unquantized model fits on a single 80GB GPU.

For vision tasks, Gemma 4 31B supports image understanding with variable aspect ratios and resolutions, and can output structured bounding boxes for UI element detection, making it useful for document parsing and UI understanding. Compared to Gemma 3, it delivers stronger reasoning and multimodal performance. It is part of a four-size family alongside the 26B A4B MoE variant and two on-device models (E2B, E4B), with the 31B dense variant optimized for output quality and fine-tuning over inference speed.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Opus 5 performed better. It scores higher on all 4 vision tasks and averages 70.9% (#20 of 63) against 57.7% (#39 of 63) for Gemma 4 31B. 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 51.4%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Gemma 4 31B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0015 per sample against $0.020. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Claude Opus 5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.2s per inference against 34.4s. 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.