Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemma 3 4B
Compare Claude Sonnet 5 and Gemma 3 4B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, OCR, and Image Captioning.
Compare Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemma 3 4B live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemma 3 4B: Overview
Claude Sonnet 5 is a mid-tier large language model from Anthropic, released on June 30, 2026, as the latest model in the Sonnet series and a direct successor to Claude Sonnet 4.6. It is a hybrid reasoning model designed primarily for agentic workflows, software coding, and professional tasks. The model features a 1 million token context window, a 128k maximum output token limit, and runs adaptive thinking by default, giving API users fine-grained control over reasoning effort across five levels (low, medium, high, max, and extra-high). It uses an updated tokenizer shared with Opus 4.7 and later models, which produces approximately 30% more tokens for equivalent text compared to earlier Claude models. On benchmarks, Sonnet 5 scores 63.2% on agentic coding and 81.2% on OSWorld, narrowing the gap with Opus 4.8 while remaining at Sonnet-tier pricing.
The model supports text and image input with text output, and accepts tools including browsers and terminals for autonomous multi-step task execution. Anthropic's safety evaluations report that Sonnet 5 shows a lower rate of undesirable behaviors than Sonnet 4.6 and is generally safer in agentic contexts, with improved resistance to prompt injection and reduced sycophancy. Cybersecurity safeguards equivalent to those on Opus 4.7 and 4.8 are active, though Anthropic notes the model was not deliberately trained on cybersecurity tasks. The model is proprietary and API-only, with no open weights.
Gemma 3 4B, released on March 12, 2025, is the mid-sized member of Google DeepMind’s open-weight Gemma 3 family. With about 4 billion parameters, it is multimodal—supporting text and image inputs and generating text outputs. Like the larger Gemma 3 models, it features a 128,000-token input context window with an output capacity of ~8,192 tokens, enabling it to handle long documents and mixed text–image reasoning tasks.
The 4B variant is designed as a balance between efficiency and capability: it offers multilingual support across 140+ languages, strong summarization and reasoning performance, and compatibility with moderate hardware. Inference can run with ~6.4 GB VRAM in BF16, or significantly less in quantized 8-bit (~4.4 GB) or 4-bit (~3.4 GB) modes, making it accessible to developers outside large-scale infrastructure. While it lags behind the 12B and 27B versions on the most complex reasoning and multimodal benchmarks, its lower compute footprint makes it ideal for research, prototyping, and practical deployment where efficiency matters.
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemma 3 4B Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Sonnet 5 | Gemma 3 4B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2026 | Mar 2025 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 128K |
| Parameters | 4B | |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $0.050 |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | $0.100 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 70.15% | 37.31% |
| Avg Response Time | 3.90s | 16.80s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.1K | |
| Median output tokens | 61 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0048 | |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | 60%(9/15) |
| Document Understanding | 66.7%(6/9) | 55.6%(5/9) |
| Object Counting | 20%(2/10) | 0%(0/10) |
| Object Understanding | 92.9%(13/14) | 42.9%(6/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 78.9%(15/19) | 26.3%(5/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 83.84% | 64.19% |
| Avg Response Time | 2.77s | 0.92s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 642 | 300 |
| Median output tokens | 64 | 12 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0019 | $0.0000 |
| Focused Scene OCR | 88.9%(88/99) | 63.6%(63/99) |
| Handwritten Math | 50%(5/10) | 10%(1/10) |
| License Plate Recognition | 90%(27/30) | 86.7%(26/30) |
| Text Recognition | 80%(24/30) | 73.3%(22/30) |
| VQA & Extraction | 80%(48/60) | 58.3%(35/60) |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology