Claude Opus 4.7 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B
Compare Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemma 4 26B A4B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Classification, OCR, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.
Compare Claude Opus 4.7 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 Opus 4.7 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B: Overview
Claude Opus 4.7 is a proprietary multimodal language model developed by Anthropic, released on April 16, 2026. It is designed for agentic coding, long-horizon task execution, and enterprise knowledge work. The model supports text and vision inputs and operates with a context window of up to 1,000,000 tokens. It introduces adaptive thinking, which dynamically allocates reasoning based on task complexity, along with configurable effort controls including a new xhigh setting that sits between the existing high and max levels. It achieves 87.6% on SWE-bench Verified and 78.0% on OSWorld-Verified, reflecting strong performance on autonomous software engineering and computer use tasks respectively.
Compared to Claude Opus 4.6, version 4.7 shows improved instruction following and higher reliability in extended agentic tasks. Vision capabilities now support high-resolution inputs up to 2,576px on the long edge (~3.75 megapixels), more than three times the resolution of prior Claude models, enabling finer interpretation of dense diagrams, UI screenshots, and document layouts. These improvements, combined with self-verification on long-running tasks and a new task budget system for controlling agentic loops, make it well-suited for complex software engineering, technical analysis, and multimodal vision workflows.
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 Opus 4.7 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Opus 4.7 | Gemma 4 26B A4B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Apr 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 256K |
| Parameters | 25.2B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $5.00 | $0.060 |
| Output $/1M | $25.00 | $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 | 67.16% | 68.66% |
| Avg Response Time | 4.85s | 30.23s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.4K | 294 |
| Median output tokens | 110 | 214 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.015 | $0.0001 |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | 80%(12/15) |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | 88.9%(8/9) |
| Object Counting | 20%(2/10) | 10%(1/10) |
| Object Understanding | 85.7%(12/14) | 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