Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemma 4 12B
Compare Claude Sonnet 5 and Gemma 4 12B side-by-side.
Compare Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemma 4 12B 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 vs Gemma 4 12B: 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 4 12B is an open-weight multimodal model from Google in the Gemma 4 family. It is intended for text and image understanding tasks such as visual question answering, OCR, captioning, and document understanding, with a smaller parameter footprint than the larger Gemma 4 variants.
This entry is connected to Roboflow Playground vision evals for comparison. No runnable Playground workflow is configured yet, so the model page is used for discovery and benchmark context rather than direct hosted inference.
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemma 4 12B Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Sonnet 5 | Gemma 4 12B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2026 | Jun 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | — |
| Parameters | 12B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | 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% | 62.69% |
| Avg Response Time | 3.90s | 6.88s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.1K | |
| Median output tokens | 61 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0048 | |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | 73.3%(11/15) |
| Document Understanding | 66.7%(6/9) | 88.9%(8/9) |
| Object Counting | 20%(2/10) | 10%(1/10) |
| Object Understanding | 92.9%(13/14) | 78.6%(11/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 78.9%(15/19) | 57.9%(11/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 83.84% | |
| Avg Response Time | 2.77s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 642 | |
| Median output tokens | 64 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0019 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 88.9%(88/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 50%(5/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 90%(27/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 80%(24/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 80%(48/60) | |
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