Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking vs Gemma 4 12B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

57.44/100
Margin
10.1pts
← winning
47.29/100
0 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking #69 (Estimated); Gemma 4 12B #137 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Gemma 4 12B share 12 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking; 11 to Gemma 4 12B.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
12
Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking only
4
Gemma 4 12B only
11
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Gemma 4 12B is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.

Gemma 4 12B has the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Gemma 4 12B
CategoryClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingΔGemma 4 12B
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapGemma 4 12B43.4
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapGemma 4 12B77.5
MathClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapGemma 4 12B77.5
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot measuredMarginNo overlapGemma 4 12B69.1

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingGemma 4 12BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot availableGemma 4 12BNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot availableGemma 4 12BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingNot availableGemma 4 12BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.5 Thinking200KGemma 4 12B256KGemma 4 12B lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingGemma 4 12BResult
τ²-bench resultsSource 89.5%36.3%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingGemma 4 12BResult
Vibe Code BenchSource 20.63%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 49.5%38.2%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingGemma 4 12BResult
AA-LCRSource 74.0%55.3%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
CritPtSource 4.6%0.0%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
BBHSource —53%Not comparable
MRCRv2Source —43.4%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingGemma 4 12BResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 40.8%22.0%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 86.6%75.3%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-HLESource 28.4%14.8%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 13.3%-51.9%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.7%16.0%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 59.8%80.8%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
AA MMLU-ProSource 89.5%—Not comparable
GPQASource —78.8%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —78.8%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —77.2%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource —5.2%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —83.4%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingGemma 4 12BResult
AIME26Source —77.5%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingGemma 4 12BResult
AA Global-MMLU-LiteSource 91.3%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingGemma 4 12BResult
AA-MMMU-ProSource 74.0%69.7%Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1277—Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource —69.1%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —79.7%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —48.7%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5 ThinkingGemma 4 12BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 58.0%73.5%Gemma 4 12B leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Can I compare Claude Opus 4.5 Thinking and Gemma 4 12B on BenchLM yet?

Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.

Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?

BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.