Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Gemma 4 E4B
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #27 (Estimated); Gemma 4 E4B #155 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Gemma 4 E4B share 13 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 25 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 1 to Gemma 4 E4B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
- 25
- Gemma 4 E4B only
- 1
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 E4B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 66.27 to 43.2. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Gemma 4 E4B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Gemma 4 E4B.
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 | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Δ | Gemma 4 E4B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0 | Margin→ 7.4 | Gemma 4 E4B67.4 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 E4BNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)78.6 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 E4BNot measured |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 E4BNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 E4BNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 94.2%B 58.6%Winner: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Δ 35.6GPQA: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 94.2%; Gemma 4 E4B scored 58.6%. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Gemma 4 E4B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 output | Gemma 4 E4B$0 input / $0 output | Gemma 4 E4B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | Gemma 4 E4BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not available | Gemma 4 E4BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1M | Gemma 4 E4B128K | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Gemma 4 E4B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 69.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 79.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 77.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 78% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 73.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 44.4% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 88.6% | 20.8% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 49.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1495 | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 18.2% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 45.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 46.7% | — | Not comparable |
Coding5 benchmarks
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeGemma 4 E4B wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Gemma 4 E4B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 94.2% | 58.6% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 94.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 54.7% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 46.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 53.5% | 12.5% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 91.4% | 57.6% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 39.6% | 3.7% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 26.2% | -20.0% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 45.8% | 8.6% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 36.2% | 31.3% | Gemma 4 E4B leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 69.4% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Gemma 4 E4B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (legacy)Source | 43.8% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) | Gemma 4 E4B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 58.6% | 44.2% | Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemma 4 E4B?
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 66.27 to 43.2. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 94.2% and 58.6%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Gemma 4 E4B?
Gemma 4 E4B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 67.4 versus 60. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
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.