Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemma 4 12B
Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #5 (Supported); Gemma 4 12B #137 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and Gemma 4 12B share 14 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 39 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 9 to Gemma 4 12B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- Claude Opus 4.8 only
- 39
- Gemma 4 12B only
- 9
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 12B only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 3 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 4.8 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 78.34 to 47.29. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.8's sharpest advantage is in multimodal & grounded, where it averages 77 against 69.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 93.6% to 78.8%. Gemma 4 12B does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Claude Opus 4.8 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Gemma 4 12B.
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 4.8 | Δ | Gemma 4 12B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Opus 4.853.9 | Margin→ 23.6 | Gemma 4 12B77.5 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.862.7 | Margin→ 14.8 | Gemma 4 12B77.5 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.877.0 | Margin← 7.9 | Gemma 4 12B69.1 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.880.3 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 12BNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.881.1 | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 12BNot measured |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.8Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Gemma 4 12B43.4 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 93.6%B 78.8%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 14.8GPQA: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 93.6%; Gemma 4 12B scored 78.8%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemma 4 12B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 output | Gemma 4 12BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.8Not available | Gemma 4 12BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.8Not available | Gemma 4 12BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.81M | Gemma 4 12B256K | Claude Opus 4.8 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic21 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemma 4 12B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 74.6% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 93.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Finance Agent v2Source | 53.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1594 | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 82.2% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 59.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 72.97% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 47.2% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 94.4% | 36.3% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 54.7% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 21.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 20.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1347 | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 48.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 44.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 91.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 27.6% | — | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 58.3% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 84.6% | — | Not comparable |
Coding10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemma 4 12B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 69.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 84.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultimodalSource | 38.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 74.6% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | 58.4% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 62.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 74.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 53.5% | 38.2% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 46.5% | — | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeGemma 4 12B wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemma 4 12B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 93.6% | 78.8% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 93.6% | 78.8% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| HLESource | 57.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 49.8% | 5.2% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 55.7% | 22.0% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.0% | 75.3% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 45.7% | 14.8% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 27.4% | -51.9% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 46.6% | 16.0% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 35.9% | 80.8% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 77.2% | Not comparable |
| MMMLUSource | — | 83.4% | Not comparable |
MathGemma 4 12B wins4 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemma 4 12B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| INCLUDESource | 87.6% | — | Not comparable |
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.8 wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemma 4 12B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| OfficeQA ProSource | 66.2% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 87.9% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 89.9% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXiv w/o toolsSource | 80.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1270 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 69.1% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 79.7% | Not comparable |
| MedXpertQA (MM)Source | — | 48.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 69.7% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemma 4 12B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 62.2% | 73.5% | Gemma 4 12B leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemma 4 12B?
Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 78.34 to 47.29. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 93.6% and 78.8%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemma 4 12B?
Gemma 4 12B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 62.7. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemma 4 12B?
Gemma 4 12B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 53.9. Claude Opus 4.8 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemma 4 12B?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 77 versus 69.1. Gemma 4 12B stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
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.