Claude Sonnet 4 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B
Compare Claude Sonnet 4 and Gemma 4 26B A4B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Object Detection, Open Prompt, and Classification.
Compare Claude Sonnet 4 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 4 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B: Overview
Claude 4 Sonnet, released by Anthropic in May 2025, is the mid-tier model in the Claude 4 family, designed to balance capability, cost, and speed. It is multimodal, accepting both text and images, and extends beyond prior versions with improved “computer use” support, allowing API-driven interaction with desktop-like interfaces. By default, it supports 200,000 tokens of context, but as of August 2025, it also offers a 1 million-token context window in public beta—making it one of the most context-capable models available for processing entire codebases or large document sets in a single request.
Sonnet 4 is significantly cheaper than the flagship Opus while still demonstrating strong reasoning, coding, and instruction-following ability with reduced hallucinations. Its extended context capabilities and lower latency make it well-suited for enterprise-scale knowledge management, software development, research assistants, and productivity automation where both cost efficiency and high reliability are essential.
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 4 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Sonnet 4 | Gemma 4 26B A4B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | May 2025 | Apr 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 256K |
| Parameters | 25.2B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $3.00 | $0.060 |
| Output $/1M | $15.00 | $0.330 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 68.66% | 68.66% |
| Avg Response Time | 21.26s | 30.23s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 294 | |
| Median output tokens | 214 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0001 | |
| Defect Detection | 80%(12/15) | 80%(12/15) |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | 88.9%(8/9) |
| Object Counting | 20%(2/10) | 10%(1/10) |
| Object Understanding | 78.6%(11/14) | 85.7%(12/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 68.4%(13/19) | 68.4%(13/19) |
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