Skip to main content
BenchLM

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Gemma 4 E2B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

85/100
Margin
51.0pts
← winning
34/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #3; Gemma 4 E2B unranked

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and Gemma 4 E2B share 13 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 40 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 2 to Gemma 4 E2B.

Updated July 12, 2026
Shared results
13
Claude Opus 4.8 only
40
Gemma 4 E2B only
2
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 E2B only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 5 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 4.8 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 85 to 34. 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 knowledge, where it averages 62.7 against 56.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 93.6% to 43.4%.

Claude Opus 4.8 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 E2B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.8 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Gemma 4 E2B.

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 4.8 and Gemma 4 E2B
CategoryClaude Opus 4.8ΔGemma 4 E2B
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.862.7Margin← 5.8Gemma 4 E2B56.9
AgenticClaude Opus 4.880.3MarginNo overlapGemma 4 E2BNot measured
CodingClaude Opus 4.876.4MarginNo overlapGemma 4 E2BNot measured
MathClaude Opus 4.853.9MarginNo overlapGemma 4 E2BNot measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.877.0MarginNo overlapGemma 4 E2BNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Opus 4.8B · Gemma 4 E2B

  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 93.6%B 43.4%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 50.2
    GPQA: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 93.6%; Gemma 4 E2B scored 43.4%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 4 E2BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 outputGemma 4 E2B$0 input / $0 outputGemma 4 E2B has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.8Not availableGemma 4 E2BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.8Not availableGemma 4 E2BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.81MGemma 4 E2B128KClaude Opus 4.8 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 4 E2BResult
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 1600—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
Tau2-TelecomSource 94.4%20.8%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
GDPval-AASource 55.0%—Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 21.1%—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 20.6%—Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource 1354—Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 48.5%—Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 44.0%—Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 7.5%—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 27.6%—Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 4 E2BResult
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
Terminal-Bench HardSource 58.3%3.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 53.5%20.9%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
FrontierCodeSource 46.5%—Not comparable
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source 84.6%—Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 4 E2BResult
AA-LCRSource 67.7%15.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
CritPtSource 20.9%0.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 4 E2BResult
GPQASource 93.6%43.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
GPQA-DSource 93.6%—Not comparable
HLESource 57.9%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 49.8%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 55.7%9.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.0%43.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-HLESource 45.7%4.8%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 27.4%-24.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 46.6%6.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 35.9%32.9%Gemma 4 E2B leads
MMLU-ProSource —60%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 4 E2BResult
USAMO 2026Source 96.7%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 47.241%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 31.250%—Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 4 E2BResult
INCLUDESource 87.6%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 4 E2BResult
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 1281—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —44.6%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Gemma 4 E2BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 62.2%38.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemma 4 E2B?

Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 85 to 34. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 93.6% and 43.4%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Gemma 4 E2B?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 62.7 versus 56.9. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 12, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.