Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude 4.1 Opus
51
Gemma 4 31B
65
Pick Gemma 4 31B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4.1 Opus only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Coding
+32.9 difference
Claude 4.1 Opus
Gemma 4 31B
$15 / $75
$0 / $0
29 t/s
N/A
1.66s
N/A
200K
256K
Pick Gemma 4 31B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4.1 Opus only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Gemma 4 31B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 65 to 51. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude 4.1 Opus is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $75.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemma 4 31B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Gemma 4 31B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude 4.1 Opus is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Gemma 4 31B gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for Claude 4.1 Opus.
Gemma 4 31B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 65 to 51.
Claude 4.1 Opus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 74.5 versus 41.6. Gemma 4 31B stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.