Knowledge
Like-for-like- Claude Opus 4.8
- 71.7
- Supported · #9/181
- Gemma 4 12B
- 40.4
- Supported · #138/181
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 5 public rows
- Reading
- Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemma 4 12B
Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Claude Opus 4.8 has the higher public score, 72.3 versus 46.64, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
3 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Claude Opus 4.8
Claude Opus 4.8 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Gemma 4 12B is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Gemma 4 12B is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
35 Claude Opus 4.8 only
3 Shared
9 Gemma 4 12B only
- Shared results
- 3
- Claude Opus 4.8 only
- 35
- Gemma 4 12B only
- 9
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
4 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Agentic
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.8
- 63.2
- Supported · #16/151
- Gemma 4 12B
- 47.9
- Estimated · #81/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 12 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.8
- 66.5
- Supported · #12/183
- Gemma 4 12B
- 46.6
- Estimated · #97/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 10 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.8
- 87.8
- #3/48
- Gemma 4 12B
- 26.1
- #44/48
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Instruction following
Directional only- Claude Opus 4.8
- 75.2
- #59/120
- Gemma 4 12B
- 89.8
- #21/120
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.8
- 55.1
- #20/22
- Gemma 4 12B
- 34.0
- Unranked · 4 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.8
- 65.4
- #2/7
- Gemma 4 12B
- 57.6
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 3 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Opus 4.8
- Not ranked
- Gemma 4 12B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Opus 4.8 | Gemma 4 12B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | 71.7Supported · #9/181 | 40.4Supported · #138/181 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 5 public rows | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| Agentic | 63.2Supported · #16/151 | 47.9Estimated · #81/151 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 12 vs 0 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 66.5Supported · #12/183 | 46.6Estimated · #97/183 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 10 vs 1 public rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 87.8#3/48 | 26.1#44/48 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Instruction following | 75.2#59/120 | 89.8#21/120 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 55.1#20/22 | 34.0Unranked · 4 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 65.4#2/7 | 57.6Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 3 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
HLE w/o tools
Knowledge
GPQA
Knowledge
Claude Opus 4.8: 93.6%Gemma 4 12B: 78.8%Normalized gap 14.8Claude Opus 4.8 source Gemma 4 12B source
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.8
- $0.0175
- Fits in one request
- Gemma 4 12B
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Gemma 4 12B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.8
- $0.325
- Fits in one request
- Gemma 4 12B
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Gemma 4 12B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Opus 4.8
- $1.35
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Gemma 4 12B
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Claude Opus 4.8 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Gemma 4 12B has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 4 12B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Opus 4.8
Gemma 4 12B
API model ID
Claude Opus 4.8
claude-opus-4-8
Anthropic model overviewGemma 4 12B
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Opus 4.8
Not published
Gemma 4 12B
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Claude Opus 4.8
text, image
Anthropic model overviewGemma 4 12B
text, image, audio, video
Google Gemma 4 model documentationDocumented outputs
Claude Opus 4.8
Gemma 4 12B
Provider availability
Claude Opus 4.8
Generally Available · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewGemma 4 12B
Open Weights · open weights
Google gemma-4-12B model cardReasoning profile
Claude Opus 4.8
Reasoning
Gemma 4 12B
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Opus 4.8
Proprietary
Gemma 4 12B
Open Weight
License
Claude Opus 4.8
Proprietary
Gemma 4 12B
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Opus 4.8
2026-05-28
Gemma 4 12B
2026-06-03
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Claude Opus 4.8 has the higher public score, 72.3 versus 46.64, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Claude Opus 4.8 has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence47 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Claude Opus 4.821.1%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.874.6%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Opus 4.884.3%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Claude Opus 4.893.1%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Opus 4.883.4%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
Finance Agent v2
Claude Opus 4.853.9%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Opus 4.882.2%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Claude Opus 4.859.9%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Opus 4.872.97%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Claude Opus 4.821.1%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Opus 4.820.6%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.871.9%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 4.888.6%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Opus 4.869.2%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Claude Opus 4.884.4%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
SWE Multimodal
Claude Opus 4.838.4%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Opus 4.874.6%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
cursorBench31
Claude Opus 4.858.4%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Opus 4.862.3%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Opus 4.846.5%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.887.8%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.888.6%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Claude Opus 4.8—Gemma 4 12B72.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Opus 4.893.6%SourceGemma 4 12B78.8%SourceClaude Opus 4.8 leads this result
GPQA-D
Claude Opus 4.893.6%SourceGemma 4 12B78.8%SourceClaude Opus 4.8 leads this result
HLE
Claude Opus 4.857.9%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Claude Opus 4.849.8%SourceGemma 4 12B5.2%SourceClaude Opus 4.8 leads this result
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.892.4%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Claude Opus 4.889.6%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.8—Gemma 4 12B77.2%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMLU
Claude Opus 4.8—Gemma 4 12B83.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
USAMO 2026
Claude Opus 4.896.7%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Claude Opus 4.847.241%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Claude Opus 4.831.250%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
AIME26
Claude Opus 4.8—Gemma 4 12B77.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
INCLUDE
Claude Opus 4.887.6%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
Multimodal
OfficeQA Pro
Claude Opus 4.866.2%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Claude Opus 4.887.9%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Opus 4.889.9%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Claude Opus 4.880.5%SourceGemma 4 12B—Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Claude Opus 4.8—Gemma 4 12B69.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision
Claude Opus 4.8—Gemma 4 12B79.7%SourceNot directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Claude Opus 4.8—Gemma 4 12B48.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemma 4 12B?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the higher public score, 72.3 versus 46.64, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemma 4 12B?
Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 66.5 to 46.6. Gemma 4 12B is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemma 4 12B?
Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 63.2 to 47.9. Gemma 4 12B is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemma 4 12B?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemma 4 12B?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 256K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 4, 2026
Watch Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemma 4 12B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.