Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B
Compare Claude Sonnet 5 and Gemma 4 26B A4B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, Open Prompt, OCR, Classification, and Image Captioning.
Compare Claude Sonnet 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B: 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 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.
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Sonnet 5 | Gemma 4 26B A4B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2026 | Apr 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 256K |
| Parameters | 25.2B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $0.060 |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | $0.330 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| 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% | 68.66% |
| Avg Response Time | 3.90s | 30.23s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.1K | 294 |
| Median output tokens | 61 | 214 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0048 | $0.0001 |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | 80%(12/15) |
| Document Understanding | 66.7%(6/9) | 88.9%(8/9) |
| Object Counting | 20%(2/10) | 10%(1/10) |
| Object Understanding | 92.9%(13/14) | 85.7%(12/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 78.9%(15/19) | 68.4%(13/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 83.84% | 83.84% |
| Avg Response Time | 2.77s | 12.05s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 642 | 290 |
| Median output tokens | 64 | 42 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0019 | $0.0000 |
| Focused Scene OCR | 88.9%(88/99) | 85.9%(85/99) |
| Handwritten Math | 50%(5/10) | 50%(5/10) |
| License Plate Recognition | 90%(27/30) | 93.3%(28/30) |
| Text Recognition | 80%(24/30) | 80%(24/30) |
| VQA & Extraction | 80%(48/60) | 83.3%(50/60) |
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