Claude Opus 4.1 vs Gemma 3 12B
Compare Claude Opus 4.1 and Gemma 3 12B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, OCR, and Image Captioning.
Compare Claude Opus 4.1 vs Gemma 3 12B 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 Opus 4.1 vs Gemma 3 12B: Overview
Claude 4.1 Opus, released by Anthropic in August 2025, is the upgraded flagship of the Claude 4 family, building on Opus 4 with stronger reasoning and agentic capabilities. Like its predecessor, it is multimodal and optimized for text, code, and tool use, with support for large context windows suited to multi-file codebases, technical workflows, and long-horizon problem solving.
On benchmarks, Opus 4.1 improves coding performance, reaching ~74.5% on SWE-Bench Verified compared to Opus 4’s ~72.5%. It demonstrates more precise debugging, refactoring, and orchestration of agentic tasks while maintaining similar safety and alignment safeguards. It is best suited for enterprise-scale software development, research automation, and advanced reasoning workflows where reliability and depth of analysis are critical.
Gemma 3 12B, announced by Google DeepMind on March 12, 2025, is part of the open-weight Gemma 3 family, designed to provide a balance between capability and accessibility. With around 12 billion parameters, it supports multimodal input (text + images) and outputs text, making it useful for reasoning, summarization, Q&A, and visual understanding tasks. The model supports an input context of 128,000 tokens and typically generates up to ~8,000 tokens in output.
The 12B variant is instruction-tuned (“Gemma-3-12B-IT”) and optimized for multilingual use across more than 140 languages. It can run on a single GPU or TPU, offering a lighter compute footprint than very large proprietary models, while still achieving strong performance in reasoning benchmarks. Quantized and lower-precision variants are available to improve efficiency. Limitations include smaller output lengths relative to input capacity, scaling hardware needs at larger sizes, and performance below massive proprietary models on the most complex multimodal or reasoning-heavy tasks.
Claude Opus 4.1 vs Gemma 3 12B Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Opus 4.1 | Gemma 3 12B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2025 | Mar 2025 |
| Context Window | 200K | 128K |
| Parameters | 12B | |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $15.00 | $0.050 |
| Output $/1M | $75.00 | $0.150 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | 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 | 59.7% | |
| Avg Response Time | 7.09s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.0K | |
| Median output tokens | 140 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.040 | |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | |
| Object Counting | 0%(0/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 64.3%(9/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 63.2%(12/19) | |
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