Roboflow

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B

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

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

Claude Sonnet 5.5 scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Counting, where Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads 79.3% to 43.2%.

Overall, Claude Sonnet 5.5 averages 83.8% (#7 of 60) against 63.6% (#47 of 60) for Gemma 4 26B A4B.

Gemma 4 26B A4B is cheaper ($0.0019 vs $0.0065 per sample), while Claude Sonnet 5.5 is faster (10.8s vs 27.8s per sample).

Claude Sonnet 5.5Gemma 4 26B A4B

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B Comparison Table

Evals updated September 28, 2026Pricing updated September 28, 2026

PropertyClaude Sonnet 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$0.068
Output $/1M$0.225
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
83.8%
63.6%
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1661.9%FP863.6%AWQ-INT461.6%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0065$0.0019
Avg speed / sample10.78s27.84s
By task
Object Detection (low)
74.3%
±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.5 to 75.3
$0.0098
44.2%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 43.5 to 44.8
$0
Object Detection (high)
76.8%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.5 to 77.3
$0.014
–
Counting (low)
79.3%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 79.7
$0.0042
43.2%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 41.9 to 46.0
$0
Counting (high)
82.9%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 83.8
$0.0053
–
Identification (low)
91.7%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8
$0.0029
81.3%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 84.4
$0
Identification (high)
90.6%
±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6
$0.0033
–
OCR (low)
90.6%
±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.0 to 91.7
$0.0079
88.7%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.6 to 90.2
$0
OCR (high)
90.9%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.2 to 92.3
$0.011
–
Data Extraction (low)
90.7%
±1.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 89.7 to 92.8
$0.0033
76.6%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.3 to 77.3
$0
Data Extraction (high)
93.1%
±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8
$0.0036
–
Reasoning (low)
76.4%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.8
$0.0049
47.7%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 45.0 to 49.0
$0
Reasoning (high)
83.9%
±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 85.4
$0.0061
–

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B: Overview

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal language model from Anthropic and the second release in the Claude 5.5 family, following Claude Opus 5.5. It accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, operating with a 1M token context window and a maximum output of 128K tokens per request. The model uses adaptive thinking by default, allocating variable reasoning effort per request rather than exposing a manual extended thinking toggle, and its training data cutoff is June 2026. Anthropic positions it as a faster, lower cost complement to Opus 5.5 for well scoped everyday tasks, bug fixing, and producing documents, slides, and spreadsheets.

On visual and agentic evaluations reported at launch, Sonnet 5.5 scores 61.6% on Chartography, a chart recognition test, compared with 15.6% for Claude Sonnet 5, and 80.1% on OSWorld 2.1, a computer use benchmark measuring screenshot driven control of a desktop environment, compared with 57.0% for Sonnet 5. It reports 70.6% on Terminal-Bench 4.0 for agentic coding. Anthropic describes it as the first Sonnet model able to complete Pokemon Red from screenshots alone, and it generates output more than 30% faster than Sonnet 5 while using fewer tokens for equivalent work.

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 Sonnet 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 83.8% (#7 of 60) against 63.6% (#47 of 60) 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 Sonnet 5.5 leads with 79.3% 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 $0.0065. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 10.8s per inference against 27.8s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.